ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2025
Clinical data warehouse analysis of clinical laboratory test results of Korean healthy volunteers: does "not clinically significant" range of healthy volunteers need modification?
Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzed clinical laboratory test results of healthy Korean volunteers screened for Phase 1 clinical trials at Chungnam National University Hospital. Data from 53 trials conducted between 2019 and 2023 were extracted from the Clinical Data Warehouse and included tests such as white blood cell count, hemoglobin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and creatinine. The study aimed to evaluate whether current ranges for "not clinically significant (NCS)" values need modification. Results showed that NCS values often varied between studies, with temporary deviations from normal ranges being common among healthy volunteers, especially those engaged in activities such as heavy weight training or recent dietary excess. Comparative pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence studies made up the majority of trials. The analysis highlighted discrepancies in laboratory criteria application, with implications for screening failure rates. The findings suggest that stricter guidelines might exclude otherwise eligible participants unnecessarily. Establishing consistent NCS criteria could optimize screening and reduce variability across clinical sites. This is the first study to provide insights into clinical lab results for healthy Korean volunteers, emphasizing the need for tailored NCS guidelines in Phase 1 trials.
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.