ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2024
Analyzing collaborations in clinical trials in Korea using association rule mining.
Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying how trial sites collaborate is essential for multicenter trials. The ways in which collaboration among trial sites is established can vary according to study phase and clinical trial domains. In this study, we employed association rule mining to reveal trial collaboration. We used trial approval data provided by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in Korea and organized the trial sites. We collected trial information from 2012 to 2023 and categorized the trials according to study phase and clinical trial domain. We performed association rule mining based on study phase and clinical trial domain. We identified 209 valid trial sites and analyzed 11,107 clinical trials conducted during this period. By study phase, phase 1 trials accounted for the largest number (5,451), followed by phase 3 (2,492), others (1,826), and phase 2 (1,338). We found that phase 1 clinical trials had the highest lift metrics. The mean lift for phase 1 trials was 5.40, which was significantly greater than that of phase 2 (1.68) and phase 3 trials (1.72). Additionally, the network structure for trial collaboration in phase 1 trials was highly condensed, with several trial sites located in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do. Different trial collaboration characteristics were noted among clinical trial domains, with mean and variability of the lift metrics for pediatrics being the highest. In conclusion, association rule mining can identify collaborations among trial sites. Collaboration in phase 1 trials is relatively more exclusive than in other phases, and aspects of collaboration differ among clinical trial domains.
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.