MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Building Equitable Partnerships Between Industry Sponsors and Indigenous Communities to Enhance Engagement in Clinical Trials

2025· review· en· W4414499458 on OpenAlexaff
Lancer Stephens, Nicole Redvers, Maile Taualii, Angela Cimino, Kasey Boynton, Allison Kelliher, Heather Angel Mars-Martins, Dean S. Seneca, Jenny García Valencia

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)Western University
FundersSanofi
KeywordsIndigenousClinical trialDiversity (politics)Public healthMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians (AI/AN/NH) have among the lowest representation in clinical trial participation in the United States (US) compared with other racial/ethnic groups and experience many barriers to health care access. To promote equitable and justice-centered inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in clinical trials and improve health equity, industry sponsors need to be better attuned to community-based priorities. This article summarizes perspectives including strategies to build more effective and equitable partnerships with Indigenous communities in the US and to advance access to medical care. METHODS: A panel of advisors on AI/AN/NH health care assembled for a virtual roundtable discussion in March 2024. A narrative review, supported by key publications, was conducted to summarize and contextualize the discussions. RESULTS: AI/AN/NH face various health inequities and challenges in clinical trial enrollment, including justified distrust of medical research environments, inaccessible and unaffordable health care, and limited community engagement by the research community. Proposed methods for engagement based on advisor insights were developed to guide industry sponsors in building more effective partnerships with Indigenous communities. Engagement methods consist of several strategies such as investing in community priorities, building a long-term commitment, identifying trusted messengers, and codeveloping engagement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Current challenges regarding clinical trial diversity are impacting health outcomes among Indigenous Peoples, furthering disparities. Based on advisor engagement, establishing effective, equitable, and justice-centered partnerships between industry sponsors and Indigenous Peoples has the potential to result in community-driven priorities being recognized in clinical trials, and thus expanding benefit of medical innovation.

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)0.193
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1930.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.016 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207