ArticleScientific reports2026
iGraphCTC: an inter-connected graph convolutional network for comprehensive clinical trial collaborations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly expanding their global presence by engaging in collaborative clinical research to meet the growing demand for effective chronic disease treatments. However, identifying suitable affiliations and collaboration networks remains a significant challenge. To tackle this, we propose iGraphCTC, a novel framework for clinical trial collaboration that utilizes an adapted Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to streamline the identification of potential collaborators. The key contribution lies in its ability to integrate multidimensional clinical data (geographical and intervention attributes) into the recommendation process. Based on both geographical and intervention datasets, iGraphCTC achieves maximum improvements of 16.08% (AUC), 14.28% (F1-Score), and 6.68-17.44% (Accuracy@K). These results highlight its capability to enhance recommendation accuracy by addressing limitations of previous models and integrating clinical insights into the recommendation process. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of graph-oriented approaches in identifying collaborative activities and pinpointing potential collaborators, providing valuable insights into the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry’s collaborative landscape.
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.