ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting accrual success for better clinical trial resource allocation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trials-state of the evidence, gaps, and next steps.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Discontinuation and non-publication of atrial fibrillation clinical trials: A retrospective analysis of 538 trials.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Evaluating evidence-based recruitment strategies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias clinical trial research: A literature review.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accrual success is one key determining factor for the success of clinical trials. Global data analyses of all terminated trials reported that 55% of trials were terminated due to low accrual rates. Failure to meet accrual goals have a significant impact on costs for sponsors, academic institutions, investigators, and society at large. The ability to predict trial accrual success with high precision before the trial starts would be highly valuable, preventing the allocation of critical resources for trials unlikely to meet accrual goals. In the present study, we constructed a dataset for predicting clinical trial failure based on poor accrual using clinicaltrial.gov data containing information on 57,846 trials. Features of the dataset were informed by prior literature and constructed using data-driven natural language processing methods. We built predictive models for accrual failure using state-of-the-art supervised machine learning protocols and methods. Models resulted in good predictive performance that was stable over a 10-year time period, with predictive performance of cross-validation AUC = 0.744 (+/-0.018) and prospective validation AUC = 0.737 (+/-0.038). We also improved model calibration and examined model performance with the reject option. These modifications enable model translation into decision support tools for various real-world settings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to develop models for predicting clinical trial failure due to accrual based on a large dataset with a comprehensive set of trial features.
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.