↓ Skip to main content

Big Data in Designing Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Big Data in Designing Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Challenges
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00187
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles S. Mayo, Martha M. Matuszak, Matthew J. Schipper, Shruti Jolly, James A. Hayman, Randall K. Ten Haken

Abstract

Emergence of big data analytics resource systems (BDARSs) as a part of routine practice in Radiation Oncology is on the horizon. Gradually, individual researchers, vendors, and professional societies are leading initiatives to create and demonstrate use of automated systems. What are the implications for design of clinical trials, as these systems emerge? Gold standard, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity for the patients and settings fitting constraints of the trial, but also have limitations including: reproducibility, generalizability to routine practice, infrequent external validation, selection bias, characterization of confounding factors, ethics, and use for rare events. BDARS present opportunities to augment and extend RCTs. Preliminary modeling using single- and muti-institutional BDARS may lead to better design and less cost. Standardizations in data elements, clinical processes, and nomenclatures used to decrease variability and increase veracity needed for automation and multi-institutional data pooling in BDARS also support ability to add clinical validation phases to clinical trial design and increase participation. However, volume and variety in BDARS present other technical, policy, and conceptual challenges including applicable statistical concepts, cloud-based technologies. In this summary, we will examine both the opportunities and the challenges for use of big data in design of clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2019.
All research outputs
#8,626,132
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,411
of 22,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,593
of 324,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#31
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,741 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.