Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40346377›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Consideration for Assessing Data/Models/Tools Expiration Supporting Drug Development and Clinical Decision Making.

Jeffrey S Barrett, Mark A Turner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Jeffrey S BarrettAridhia Digital Research Environment, Glasgow, UK. Jeff.barrett@aridhia.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0879-1743
Mark A TurnerInstitute of Life Cycle and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5299-8656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision making of any kind is informed by data and often by models, tools or other solutions built from data. Data are evaluated for such purposes within a specific context of use (COU) but implicitly we often believe the data to be relevant, accurate and of high quality. In reality, this is not always the case. The status of data for various COUs must constantly be revisited for relevance and information value over time. Using drug development as an example, we postulate that there are indeed occasions where data value diminishes over time and consideration for data expiration with respect to its relevance for decision making should be entertained and at least identified with respect to a time-dependent change in status. Other situations exist which will also necessitate periodic review and condition reassessment. For example, considerations for patient privacy and consent along with compliance to regulatory standards must factor into future recommendations as well. Actions regarding data expiration are proposed as initial thoughts to be expanded upon but this assessment is primarily an attempt to explore factors which impact opinions about data information value for both drug development and clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDrug DevelopmentHumansClinical decision makingData expirationDrug developmentRegulatory science

Identifiers

PMID40346377
PMCPMC12181108

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.