ArticleTrials2025
Looking back to move forward: can historical clinical trial data and machine learning drive change in participant recruitment in anticipation of future value assessments?
Article in Trials, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug development is an expensive endeavor, with costs averaging $879.3 million and only 14.3% of them ultimately securing regulatory approval. One fundamental challenge is ensuring that the enrolled patient population in a clinical trial accurately reflects the broader target population's baseline characteristics (BCx). This concern ties directly to the generalizability of study findings beyond the trial setting. If the trial population differs significantly from real-world patients in terms of BCx (e.g., age, comorbidities, disease severity), the applicability of the results to routine clinical practice may be limited. Both regulatory agencies and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies may question the generalizability and transportability of trial results to real-world settings. HTA bodies may further require robust comparative effectiveness estimates, which necessitate alignment with the patient populations of previous studies. Real-world data (RWD) can help assess and calibrate the representativeness of clinical trial populations, though limitations persist, including underrepresentation of key subgroups and missing biomarker data. Historical clinical trial data can offer valuable insights into BCx distributions and recruitment patterns, as well as enable more reliable estimates of comparative effectiveness. Machine learning (ML) can enhance this process by leveraging clustering methods to identify optimal BCx distributions, thereby improving trial generalizability. Moreover, Bayesian clustering frameworks that incorporate RWD can further refine these estimates, ensuring better alignment with real-world epidemiology. This paper proposes that, by combining insights from prior trials with RWD using ML techniques, researchers can more effectively capture population heterogeneity and design more generalizable, patient-centric recruitment strategies.
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.