ArticleProceedings of the ... ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management2023
ClinicalRisk: A New Therapy-related Clinical Trial Dataset for Predicting Trial Status and Failure Reasons.
Article in Proceedings of the ... ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 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.
- Approaches in analyzing predictors of trial failure: a scoping review and meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- A scoping review of artificial intelligence applications in clinical trial risk assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Identification and validation of biomarkers related to nicotinamide metabolic pathway activity in heart failure.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials aim to study new tests and evaluate their effects on human health outcomes, which has a huge market size. However, carrying out clinical trials is expensive and time-consuming and often ends in no results. It will revolutionize clinical practice if we can develop an effective model to automatically estimate the status of a clinical trial and find out possible failure reasons. However, it is challenging to develop such a model because of the lack of a benchmark dataset. To address these challenges, in this paper, we first build a new dataset by extracting the publicly available clinical trial reports from ClinicalTrials.gov. The associated status of each report is treated as the status label. To analyze the failure reasons, domain experts help us manually annotate each failed report based on the description associated with it. More importantly, we examine several state-of-the-art text classification baselines on this task and find out that the unique format of the clinical trial protocols plays an essential role in affecting prediction accuracy, demonstrating the need for specially designed clinical trial classification models.
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.