ArticleClinics and practice2023
Predicting Phase 1 Lymphoma Clinical Trial Durations Using Machine Learning: An In-Depth Analysis and Broad Application Insights.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of artificial intelligence applications in clinical trial risk assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Implications of NGS-Based Molecular Profiling in Mature B-Cell Lymphomas with Potential Bone Marrow Involvement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Deciphering Factors Contributing to Cost-Effective Medicine Using Machine Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymphoma diagnoses in the US are substantial, with an estimated 89,380 new cases in 2023, necessitating innovative treatment approaches. Phase 1 clinical trials play a pivotal role in this context. We developed a binary predictive model to assess trial adherence to expected average durations, analyzing 1089 completed Phase 1 lymphoma trials from clinicaltrials.gov. Using machine learning, the Random Forest model demonstrated high efficacy with an accuracy of 0.7248 and an ROC-AUC of 0.7677 for lymphoma trials. The difference in the accuracy level of the Random Forest is statistically significant compared to the other alternative models, as determined by a 95% confidence interval on the testing set. Importantly, this model maintained an ROC-AUC of 0.7701 when applied to lung cancer trials, showcasing its versatility. A key insight is the correlation between higher predicted probabilities and extended trial durations, offering nuanced insights beyond binary predictions. Our research contributes to enhanced clinical research planning and potential improvements in patient outcomes in oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.