MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417007208 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2815

Who participates in myeloma trials? clinical and geographic predictors of access and outcomes in British Columbia, Canada.

2025· article· en· W4417007208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hong Li, Timothy Wong, A. MAUREEN ROUHI, Christopher P. Venner, Yasser Abou Mourad, Hannah Cherniawsky, Shanee Chung, Donna L. Forrest, Deepesh Lad, Stephen H. Nantel, Sujaatha Narayanan, Thomas J. Nevill, Stephen Parkin, Claudia Piechnik, Judith Anula Rodrigo, Claudie Roy, David Sanford, Kevin Song, Ryan J. Stubbins, Heather Sutherland, Cynthia L. Toze, Julia Varghese, Jennifer White, Edward C. Wong, Florian Kuchenbauer

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortProportional hazards modelSocioeconomic statusMarital statusRetrospective cohort studyMultivariate analysisUnivariateObservational studyUnivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials (CTs) are essential for advancing evidence-based treatment in multiple myeloma (MM), offering patients early access to novel therapies. British Columbia (BC), a geographically large province, more than twice the size of France, has centralized CTs in major urban centers, potentially limiting access for patients in rural areas. The impact of geographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors (SEFs) on CT participation and outcomes remains poorly understood. This study evaluated predictors of CT participation and its association with overall survival (OS) in a real-world MM cohort in BC. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of MM patients aged >18 diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2023 who received systemic therapy. CT participation was defined as enrollment in any interventional or observational study providing care beyond standard treatment. Data were collected from a local MM database and chart review. Variables included demographics, SEFs, ECOG performance status, comorbidities, and OS. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of CT participation and OS. Results: Among 599 patients, 80 (13.4%) participated in a CT. Compared to non-participants, CT participants lived closer to the center (mean 101 km vs 174 km, p = 0.0002), were more likely to reside in urban areas (90.0% vs 69.6%, p = 0.0002), had better ECOG performance status (p = 0.0006), and fewer comorbidities (mean 1.46 vs 1.83, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in income, SES, marital status, ISS stage, or ASCT receipt. On univariate analysis, CT participation was associated with longer OS (HR 0.69; median 121.7 vs 93.9 months). Other significant predictors of OS included younger age (continuous variable, HR 1.05, p< 0.0001), employed status (HR 0.64, p< 0.0001), ECOG status (HR range 1.98-21.14, p< 0.0001), and ASCT (HR 0.40, p< 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, CT participation showed a non-significant trend toward improved OS (HR 0.73, p = 0.07), while age, ECOG status, and ASCT remained independent predictors. Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, CT participants were more likely to reside in urban areas, live closer to the treatment center, and have better performance status and fewer comorbidities. These findings suggest that geographic distance and clinical fitness are key barriers to trial participation, while income and SES were not as influential. Although CT participation was associated with longer OS in univariate analysis, this effect did not reach statistical significance after adjustment, though a favorable trend remained. These results underscore the need to expand trial access to rural and comorbid patients and support prospective studies using matched cohorts to better understand the impact of CT participation on outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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