ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Landscape of Clinical Trials in Cancer Cachexia: Assessment of Trends From 1995-2024.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cancer cachexia, a multifactorial syndrome characterized by unintentional weight loss, is a frequent complication of cancer that impacts patients' quality of life and survival. Methods: In this retrospective review, we evaluated the landscape of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov for the consideration of potential factors contributing to biological human heterogeneity in their design and analyses. Results: Among clinical trials registered from 1995-2024, we observed increased inclusion of female participants, but lack of reporting of sex as a biological variable. The majority (~93%) of participants were of Caucasian descent. There was a substantial divergence in the diagnostic criteria and a wide range of tools employed to measure cancer cachexia. Lastly, few studies considered cancer type and stage as clinical variables. Conclusion: Overall, a substantial gap remains in our knowledge of cancer cachexia in non-white individuals and in females. Ultimately, these underreported data across cancer cachexia clinical trials complicate the comparison and interpretation of clinical trials results, both in the broader human population and in specific cancer types. The current evolution of knowledge and new methodologies used for cancer cachexia assessment reinforce the need for a constant revision of the consensus definition and diagnosis criteria to align with current advances in our understanding of human heterogeneity in cancer cachexia.
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.