skip to main content


Title: Understanding and predicting COVID-19 clinical trial completion vs. cessation
As of March 30 2021, over 5,193 COVID-19 clinical trials have been registered through Clinicaltrial.gov. Among them, 191 trials were terminated, suspended, or withdrawn (indicating the cessation of the study). On the other hand, 909 trials have been completed (indicating the completion of the study). In this study, we propose to study underlying factors of COVID-19 trial completion vs . cessation, and design predictive models to accurately predict whether a COVID-19 trial may complete or cease in the future. We collect 4,441 COVID-19 trials from ClinicalTrial.gov to build a testbed, and design four types of features to characterize clinical trial administration, eligibility, study information, criteria, drug types, study keywords, as well as embedding features commonly used in the state-of-the-art machine learning. Our study shows that drug features and study keywords are most informative features, but all four types of features are essential for accurate trial prediction. By using predictive models, our approach achieves more than 0.87 AUC (Area Under the Curve) score and 0.81 balanced accuracy to correctly predict COVID-19 clinical trial completion vs . cessation. Our research shows that computational methods can deliver effective features to understand difference between completed vs . ceased COVID-19 trials. In addition, such models can also predict COVID-19 trial status with satisfactory accuracy, and help stakeholders better plan trials and minimize costs.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1763452 2027339
NSF-PAR ID:
10275789
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Editor(s):
Gadekallu, Thippa Reddy
Date Published:
Journal Name:
PLOS ONE
Volume:
16
Issue:
7
ISSN:
1932-6203
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e0253789
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Abstract In this study, we propose to use machine learning to understand terminated clinical trials. Our goal is to answer two fundamental questions: (1) what are common factors/markers associated to terminated clinical trials? and (2) how to accurately predict whether a clinical trial may be terminated or not? The answer to the first question provides effective ways to understand characteristics of terminated trials for stakeholders to better plan their trials; and the answer to the second question can direct estimate the chance of success of a clinical trial in order to minimize costs. By using 311,260 trials to build a testbed with 68,999 samples, we use feature engineering to create 640 features, reflecting clinical trial administration, eligibility, study information, criteria etc. Using feature ranking, a handful of features, such as trial eligibility, trial inclusion/exclusion criteria, sponsor types etc. , are found to be related to the clinical trial termination. By using sampling and ensemble learning, we achieve over 67% Balanced Accuracy and over 0.73 AUC (Area Under the Curve) scores to correctly predict clinical trial termination, indicating that machine learning can help achieve satisfactory prediction results for clinical trial study. 
    more » « less
  2. Clinical trials are crucial for the advancement of treatment and knowledge within the medical community. Since 2007, US federal government took the initiative and requires organizations sponsoring clinical trials with at least one site in the United States to submit information on these clinical trials to the ClinicalTrials.gov database, resulting in a rich source of information for clinical trial research. Nevertheless, only a handful of analytic studies have been carried out to understand this valuable data source. In this study, we propose to use network analysis to understand infectious disease clinical trial research. Our goal is to answer two important questions: (1) what are the concentrations and characteristics of infectious disease clinical trail research? and (2) how to accurately predict what type of clinical trials a sponsor (or an investigator) is interested in? The answers to the first question provide effective ways to summarize clinical trial research related to particular disease(s), and the answers to the second question help match clinical trial sponsors and investigators for information recommendation. By using 4,228 clinical trails as the test bed, our study involves 4,864 sponsors and 1,879 research areas characterized by Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords. We extract a set of network measures to show patterns of infectious disease clinical trials, and design a new community based link prediction approach to predict sponsors' interests, with significant improvement compared to baselines. This trans-formative study concludes that using network analysis can tremendously help the understanding of clinical trial research for effective summarization, characterization, and prediction. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract Objectives

    To compare hospitals that did and did not participate in clinical trials evaluating potential inpatient COVID-19 therapeutics.

    Methods

    We conducted a cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in trials that were registered on clinicaltrials.gov between April and August 2020. Using the 2019 RAND Hospital Dataset and 2019 American Community Survey, we used logistic regression modeling to compare hospital-level traits including demographic features between trial and non-trial hospitals.

    Results

    We included 488 hospitals that were participating in 298 interventional trials and 4232 non-participating hospitals. After controlling for demographic and other hospital traits, we found that teaching status (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.52–2.95), higher patient acuity (OR 7.48, 4.39, 13.1), and location in the Northeast (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.18, 2.85) and in wealthier counties (OR: 1.32, 95% CI 1.16–1.51) were associated with increased odds of trial participation, while being in counties with more White residents was associated with reduced odds (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98–0.99).

    Conclusions

    Hospitals participating and not participating in COVID-19 inpatient treatment clinical trials differed in many ways, resulting in important implications for the generalizability of trial data.

     
    more » « less
  4. Phase I clinical trials are the first step in drug development to test a new drug or drug combination on humans. Typical designs of Phase I trials use toxicity as the primary endpoint and aim to find the maximum tolerable dosage. However, these designs are poorly applicable for the development of cancer therapeutic vaccines because the expected safety concerns for these vaccines are not as much as cytotoxic agents. The primary objectives of a cancer therapeutic vaccine phase I trial thus often include determining whether the vaccine shows biologic activity and the minimum dose necessary to achieve a full immune or even clinical response. In this paper, we propose a new Bayesian phase I trial design that allows simultaneous evaluation of safety and immunogenicity outcomes. We demonstrate the proposed clinical trial design by both a numeric study and a therapeutic human papillomavirus vaccine trial.

     
    more » « less
  5. Serology and molecular tests are the two most commonly used methods for rapid COVID-19 infection testing. The two types of tests have different mechanisms to detect infection, by measuring the presence of viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA (molecular test) or detecting the presence of antibodies triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (serology test). A handful of studies have shown that symptoms, combined with demographic and/or diagnosis features, can be helpful for the prediction of COVID-19 test outcomes. However, due to nature of the test, serology and molecular tests vary significantly. There is no existing study on the correlation between serology and molecular tests, and what type of symptoms are the key factors indicating the COVID-19 positive tests. In this study, we propose a machine learning based approach to study serology and molecular tests, and use features to predict test outcomes. A total of 2,467 donors, each tested using one or multiple types of COVID-19 tests, are collected as our testbed. By cross checking test types and results, we study correlation between serology and molecular tests. For test outcome prediction, we label 2,467 donors as positive or negative, by using their serology or molecular test results, and create symptom features to represent each donor for learning. Because COVID-19 produces a wide range of symptoms and the data collection process is essentially error prone, we group similar symptoms into bins. This decreases the feature space and sparsity. Using binned symptoms, combined with demographic features, we train five classification algorithms to predict COVID-19 test results. Experiments show that XGBoost achieves the best performance with 76.85% accuracy and 81.4% AUC scores, demonstrating that symptoms are indeed helpful for predicting COVID-19 test outcomes. Our study investigates the relationship between serology and molecular tests, identifies meaningful symptom features associated with COVID-19 infection, and also provides a way for rapid screening and cost effective detection of COVID-19 infection. 
    more » « less