Strengthening the paediatric clinical trial ecosystem to better inform policy and programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first WHO Global Clinical Trials Forum was convened in November, 2023 to develop a shared vision of an effective global clinical trial infrastructure. The Paediatric Clinical Trials Working Group was formed to provide perspectives, identify challenges, and propose solutions to strengthen the paediatric clinical trials ecosystem. Participants represented paediatric disciplines, including infectious diseases, nutrition, neonatology, pharmacology, oncology, neurodevelopment, public health, and policy. Childhood diseases have profound lifelong effects on health, livelihoods, and societies. Investment in early childhood results in highly cost-effective changes to lifelong health, productivity, and human capital returns. Yet, there remain substantial gaps in knowledge on the efficacy and safety of many paediatric interventions, which represents a failure to establish shared priorities and alignment across governments, researchers, communities, and funders. Children are frequently marginalised from clinical trials, which is an issue of equity. Challenges include mismatched priorities and funding, risk adversity, poor design, power imbalances, and inadequate infrastructure. Solutions include aligning on and tracking local and global child health priorities against funding and supporting regional consortia to pool resources for larger, more consequential trials. We propose actions and responsibilities for global, regional, and national institutions for prioritisation, coordination, enabling paediatric trials consortia, funding, and tracking progress.
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 | 0.287 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".