Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37830010›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Uncovering key clinical trial features influencing recruitment.

Betina Idnay, Yilu Fang, Alex Butler, Joyce Moran, Ziran Li, Junghwan Lee, Casey Ta, Cong Liu, Chi Yuan, Huanyao Chen and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Scientia pro bono humani generis: Science for the benefit of humanity.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Betina Idnay *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4318-5987
Yilu Fang *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Alex ButlerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Joyce MoranDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NY Research, New York, NY, USA.
Ziran LiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Junghwan LeeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Casey TaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Cong LiuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Chi YuanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Huanyao ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Edward StanleyCompliance Applications, Information Technology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
George HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Elaine LarsonSchool of Nursing, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Karen MarderDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NY Research, New York, NY, USA.
Wendy ChungDepartment of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Brenda Ruotolo *Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Chunhua Weng *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USCollege Board · USColumbia University · USNew York Academy of Medicine · US

Funding

Research Education CoreP30AG066462 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Miguel Arce · 2020 to 2026
$30.1M
Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
Bridging the Semantic Gap Between Research Eligibility Criteria and Clinical DataR01LM009886 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WENG, CHUNHUA · 2009 to 2020
$5.3M
ClinEX - Clinical Evidence Extraction, Representation, and AppraisalR01LM014344 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Yong Chen, Yifan Peng · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
Translator Red Knowledge (TReK)OT2TR003434 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DUMONTIER, MICHEL, TA, CASEY NGHIA · 2020 to 2024
$2.3M
NCATS NIH HHS OT2 TR003434NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066462NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009886NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014344NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the foundation for medical advances, but participant recruitment remains a persistent barrier to their success. This retrospective data analysis aims to (1) identify clinical trial features associated with successful participant recruitment measured by accrual percentage and (2) compare the characteristics of the RCTs by assessing the most and least successful recruitment, which are indicated by varying thresholds of accrual percentage such as ≥ 90% vs ≤ 10%, ≥ 80% vs ≤ 20%, and ≥ 70% vs ≤ 30%. Methods: Data from the internal research registry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Aggregated Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov were collected for 393 randomized interventional treatment studies closed to further enrollment. We compared two regularized linear regression and six tree-based machine learning models for accrual percentage (i.e., reported accrual to date divided by the target accrual) prediction. The outperforming model and Tree SHapley Additive exPlanations were used for feature importance analysis for participant recruitment. The identified features were compared between the two subgroups. Results: CatBoost regressor outperformed the others. Key features positively associated with recruitment success, as measured by accrual percentage, include government funding and compensation. Meanwhile, cancer research and non-conventional recruitment methods (e.g., websites) are negatively associated with recruitment success. Statistically significant subgroup differences (corrected Conclusion: This multi-source retrospective study highlighted key features influencing RCT participant recruitment, offering actionable steps for improvement, including flexible recruitment infrastructure and appropriate participant compensation.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsinformaticsmachine learningresearch recruitmentSHAP

Identifiers

PMID37830010
PMCPMC10565197
OpenAlexW4386421531

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.