Time Burdens for Participants With Advanced Cancer in Phase I Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Participating in phase I cancer clinical trials often entails extra visits and procedures. We describe the planned time and procedures associated with phase I trial participation. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase I cancer trials of new drugs with assessment schedules and results posted between 2020 and 2022. Trials were included if participants had advanced or metastatic disease. Our primary analysis measured the number of planned research days (PRDs; each day a clinic visit is required) per participant up to the first month of trial participation and for the entire trial duration. Secondarily, we estimated the number of research procedures. RESULTS: Our sample included 71 phase I trials comprising 302 cohorts. These trials enrolled 3,904 participants; the median participation duration was 2.5 months. During screening and up to the first month of participation, the median PRDs per participant was 7 (IQR, 7-10). Across the entire trial, the median PRDs per participant was 4.5 days per month (IQR, 3.30-6.20). Participants spent 15% of trial days attending planned appointments. Per trial cohort, participants were given a median of 8 (IQR, 7-11) physical examinations, 6 (IQR, 3-10) infusions, 6 (IQR, 3-12) electrocardiograms, and 1 (IQR, 1-3) biopsy. CONCLUSION: Participants commit a substantial amount of time to planned visits in phase I cancer trials, especially in the first month. Overall, they invest 15% of trial days attending planned research activities. These estimates provide a lower bound to the time participants in phase I trials donate to drug development, as our analysis excluded unplanned visits.
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it