Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23666475›Full record

ArticleMethods of information in medicine2013

Feasibility of feature-based indexing, clustering, and search of clinical trials. A case study of breast cancer trials from ClinicalTrials.gov.

M R Boland, R Miotto, J Gao, C Weng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M R BolandChunhua Weng, PhD, Florence Irving Assistant Professor, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 W 168th Street, VC-5 New York, NY 10032 USA, E-mail: cw2384@columbia.edu.
R Miotto
J Gao
C Weng

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
Washington Heights Initiative Community-based Comparative Effectiveness ResearchR01HS019853 · AHRQ · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BAKKEN, SUZANNE · 2010 to 2010
$8.9M
Bridging the Semantic Gap Between Research Eligibility Criteria and Clinical DataR01LM009886 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WENG, CHUNHUA · 2009 to 2020
$5.3M
Developing Flexible EHR Plug-ins to Re-Engineer Clinical Care and Research WorkflowsR01LM010815 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HOMMA, SHUNICHI, WENG, CHUNHUA · 2010 to 2013
$1.9M
AHRQ HHS 1R01HS019853-01AHRQ HHS R01 HS019853NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000040NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000040NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009886NLM NIH HHS R01LM009886NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010815NLM NIH HHS R01LM010815
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen standard therapies fail, clinical trials provide experimental treatment opportunities for patients with drug-resistant illnesses or terminal diseases. Clinical Trials can also provide free treatment and education for individuals who otherwise may not have access to such care. To find relevant clinical trials, patients often search online; however, they often encounter a significant barrier due to the large number of trials and in-effective indexing methods for reducing the trial search space.

objectivesThis study explores the feasibility of feature-based indexing, clustering, and search of clinical trials and informs designs to automate these processes.

methodsWe decomposed 80 randomly selected stage III breast cancer clinical trials into a vector of eligibility features, which were organized into a hierarchy. We clustered trials based on their eligibility feature similarities. In a simulated search process, manually selected features were used to generate specific eligibility questions to filter trials iteratively.

resultsWe extracted 1,437 distinct eligibility features and achieved an inter-rater agreement of 0.73 for feature extraction for 37 frequent features occurring in more than 20 trials. Using all the 1,437 features we stratified the 80 trials into six clusters containing trials recruiting similar patients by patient-characteristic features, five clusters by disease-characteristic features, and two clusters by mixed features. Most of the features were mapped to one or more Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concepts, demonstrating the utility of named entity recognition prior to mapping with the UMLS for automatic feature extraction.

conclusionsIt is feasible to develop feature-based indexing and clustering methods for clinical trials to identify trials with similar target populations and to improve trial search efficiency.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicCluster AnalysisInternetAbstracting and IndexingAdultAgedData MiningFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicSearch EngineUser-Computer Interfaceclinical trialseligibility determinationknowledge representationMedical informaticssearch engine

Identifiers

PMID23666475
PMCPMC3796134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.