Characteristics of Phase IV Clinical Trials in Oncology: An Analysis Using the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study analyzed the characteristics of phase IV clinical trials in oncology using data from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The included trials were conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 and were examined for key characteristics, including outcome measures, interventions, sample sizes, and study design, different cancer types, and geographic regions. The analysis included 368 phase IV oncology studies. An amount of 50% of these studies examined both safety and efficacy, while 43.5% only reported efficacy outcome measures, and 6.5% only described safety outcome measures. Only 16.9% of studies were powered to detect adverse events with a frequency of 1 in 100. Targeted therapies accounted for the majority of included studies (53.5%), with breast (32.91%) and hematological cancers (25.82%) being the most frequently investigated malignancies. Most phase IV oncology studies lacked sufficient power to detect rare adverse events due to their small sample sizes and instead focused on effectiveness. To ensure that there is no gap in drug safety data collection and detection of rare adverse events due to limited phase IV clinical trials, there is a significant need for additional education and participation by both health care providers and patients in spontaneous reporting processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.216 | 0.747 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".