ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Empowering Clinical Development With Disease Progression Modeling: Recommendations From the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Empowering Clinical Development With Disease Progression Modeling: Recommendations From the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating the benefit-risk profile of a medical product requires comprehensive evidence that integrates information across development stages. Technological advances and broader use of real-world data are enabling innovative quantitative paradigms characterized by greater efficiency, patient centricity, and sustainability. Despite regulatory recognition of model-informed drug development, disease progression modeling (DPM) remains underutilized compared with more established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation approaches. To inform adoption decisions by clinical, regulatory, and portfolio leaders, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) developed evidence-based, cross-sector recommendations that describe when and how to use DPM in medical product development and how to effectively communicate its impactful implementation across functions. In this article, we (i) define DPM and summarize its unique value in clinical development, (ii) describe CTTI's collaborative process to generate a set of nine DPM recommendations and a practical considerations framework, and (iii) present examples of strategic development questions showing how DPM can answer high-value questions about indication, population, endpoints, and dose selection. By providing a shared vocabulary and structured questions for decision makers and modelers, these recommendations may lower barriers to DPM implementation, support fit-for-purpose use of existing and new models, and enable more efficient, patient-focused, and sustainable clinical development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.