Enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (SPIRIT-DEFINE) guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 provides guidance for clinical trial protocol writing. However, neither the original guidance nor its extensions adequately cover the features of early phase dose-finding trials. The SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (DEFINE) statement is a new guideline that provides recommendations for essential items that should be provided in the protocols of these trials. It details extensions to the SPIRIT 2013 guidance, incorporating 17 new items and modifying 15 existing items. The purpose of this guideline is to promote transparency, completeness, reproducibility of methods, and interpretation of early phase dose-finding trial protocols. It is envisioned that the resulting improvements in the design and conduct of early phase clinical trials will ultimately reduce research inefficiencies and inconsistencies, driving transformational advances in clinical care.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.546 | 0.777 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.018 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".