ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2026
Visualizing Baseline Eligibility Across Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Trials and Real-World Cohorts.
Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) often enroll younger and fitter patients than those treated in routine practice, limiting applicability to real-world populations. We developed a simple descriptive metric, the eligibility gap (EG) score, to place trial and real-world cohorts on a common scale and summarize differences in baseline eligibility profiles.
methodsPivotal clinical trials were identified through a PubMed search, and three real-world datasets from Japan, the United States, and Spain were included. The EG score used three consistently reported domains: age, ECOG performance status, and cisplatin eligibility. Each domain was scaled from 0 to 33.3 points and summed to yield a score from 0 to 99.9, with higher scores indicating younger, fitter populations. Robustness was assessed across alternative model specifications, including prespecified weighting schemes, random-weight simulations, alternative age and ECOG scoring functions, and one-domain-out analyses.
resultsEG scores were generally higher in cisplatin-based trials (74.8-90.1) than in immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based trials (52.3-81.2) and real-world cohorts (35.1-45.5), while the cisplatin-ineligible trial had the lowest score (24.5). Alternative age transformations and a linear ECOG model did not change ranking. In one-domain-out analyses, omission of ECOG preserved ranking, whereas omission of age or cisplatin-fitness produced minor shifts. Across prespecified weighting schemes, rank-order concordance remained high (Spearman's rho = 0.982-1.000), and 10 000 random-weight simulations showed a median rho of 0.982.
conclusionsThe EG score may provide a simple descriptive summary of eligibility domains across mUC studies, with stable cohort ordering across alternative model specifications.
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.