MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396997694 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1715c

Assessment of Pediatric Nephrology Programs’ Readiness to Participate in Prospective Clinical Trials

2020· article· en· W4396997694 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shyanne Hefley, Noel Howard, H. William Schnaper, William E. Smoyer, Katherine MacRae Dell, Coleman Gross, Katherine Twombley, Tetyana L. Vasylyeva, Scott E. Wenderfer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrologyMedicineInternal medicineClinical trialIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Currently, there is a limited availability of effective, FDA-approved drugs for children with kidney disease in the United States; therefore, there is an increased need for clinical trials to evaluate drug effectiveness and safety for pediatric usage. Implementation and conduction of clinical trials is complex process, which requires a team approach, involves multiple inter-dependent steps, research infrastructure support, legal policies/procedures, equipment, and access to a regulatory oversight board. The conduct of clinical trials in small pediatric subspecialties (i.e. pediatric nephrology) may be hampered by provider clinical demands and small numbers of patients available for such studies. The goal of this survey was to assess the readiness to conduct clinical trials by pediatric nephrologists in institutions of different sizes. Assessment would also give consideration to the sites for prospective trials and educate the programs about steps needed in clinical research. Methods: The survey was designed and tested by a small group of pediatric nephrology experts. Qualtrics Online Survey Platform and Statistical analysis were used. The survey was distributed to members of ASPN (60 sites in 30 U.S states and 2 Canadian Provinces). Respondents were asked to complete the survey on behalf of the institution/practice, not their individual preferences. There was a total of 17 survey questions, which assessed the respondent's institution's participation/interest in conduction of clinical research, availability of a clinical research coordinator/IRB, and access to equipment for trial execution (dry ice, centrifuges, freezers). Results: Currently, we have recorded 68 survey responses. Two of the responding institutions had no interest in conducting clinical trials (2.9%). Notably, more respondents practiced at Academic Centers/Universities (91%) than in private practices (8.3%). We noted no major differences in access to clinical trial resources between large and small institutions. Conclusions: Clinical trials remain vital to finding better treatments and cures for pediatric patients with renal diseases. Overall, pediatric nephrology programs have good infrastructure and readiness to conduct clinical trials independently of the size of the institution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.313
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207