ArticleClinical and translational science2025
From Lab to Clinic: Effect of Academia-Industry Collaboration Characteristics on Oncology Phase 1 Trial Entry.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A quantitative analysis of global AI medical studies: gaps in randomized controlled trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
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
This study investigated the success rate of Phase 1 clinical trial entry and the factors influencing it in oncology projects involving academia-industry collaboration during the discovery and preclinical stages. A total of 344 oncology projects in the discovery stage and 360 in the preclinical stage, initiated through collaborations with universities or hospitals between 2015 and 2019, were analyzed. The Phase 1 clinical trial entry success rates for oncology collaborative projects were 9.9% from the discovery stage and 24.2% from the preclinical stage. For discovery stage contracts, strong statistical significance was observed for contract type (co-development OR 16.45, p = 0.008; licensing OR 42.43, p = 0.000) and technology (cell or gene therapy OR 3.82, p = 0.008). In contrast, for preclinical stage contracts, significant changes were noted for cancer type (blood cancer OR 2.24, p = 0.004), while the year of contract signing showed a relatively weak statistical significance (OR 1.24, p = 0.021). No significant changes were observed concerning partner firm size and the partnership territory. This study sheds light on how the characteristics of partnerships influence the success rates of early-phase research, providing valuable insights for future strategic planning in oncology drug development.
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.