MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416140576 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.0771

DISP-10. The global landscape of glioblastoma clinical trials: A missing map for low- and middle-income countries

2025· article· en· W4416140576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julieta Hoveyan, Ruzanna Papyan, Mane Ghevondyan, Ina Khachatryan, Eduard Asatryan, Paylak Sujyan, Lusine Avagyan, Elen Baloyan, Saten Hovhannisyan, Tatev Ghazaryan, Harutyun Papoyan, Armine Lazaryan, Niko Arzumanyan, Karen Bediryan, Amalya Sargsyan, Samvel Bardakhchyan, Ibrahim Qaddoumi, Gevorg Tamamyan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialGlioblastomaMissing dataLife expectancyProtocol (science)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioblastoma is the most common primary CNS malignancy in adults with a median life expectancy of 11-12 months. Limited progress in treatment options and a poor prognosis have made glioblastoma a major focus in clinical trials. This study analyses the current clinical trial landscape and evaluates access to investigational treatments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the ClinicalTrials.gov database, including all interventional trials on glioblastoma alone or with other solid tumors initiated since January 1, 2015. Trial phase, status, allocation, and site locations were extracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS As of the data cut-off on May 1, 2025, a total of 884 interventional clinical trials were identified. Among these, 55 trials were categorized as preclinical, 625 were early-phase studies, and only 54 were Phase 3 or 4 trials. At the time of analysis, 54.6% of the trials were stated as active, while 34.05% had either been completed or terminated. The primary objective in 88.24% of the studies was treatment, with the remainder focused on other interventions. Importantly, only 195 trials employed randomization. An analysis of trial site distribution revealed that only 192 clinical trials had sites located outside the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia and just 132 trials involved sites in LMICs. Among these, 113 trials were developed and conducted locally within a single LMIC, while only 19 were multicenter studies led by high-income countries. Importantly, when upper-middle-income countries were excluded, only 7 trials included sites in low- and lower-middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS Despite the large number of clinical trials conducted globally, LMICs remain significantly underrepresented. This highlights a major global health issue, as patients diagnosed with glioblastoma in LMICs are often deprived from the access to investigational therapies. Urgent actions are required to expand clinical trial access in LMICs.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.302
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.302
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.037
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→