Abstract:BACKGROUND:The past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of contributors per article, which has made explicitly defining the roles of each contributor even more challenging. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was developed to explicitly define author roles, but there is a lack of empirical data on how CRediT is used in clinical trials. This study aimed to provide empirical data on the use of CRediT in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and discuss some limitations of CRediT. A new taxonomy (CRediT-RCT) is proposed to explicitly define the author roles in RCTs.METHODS:The electronic database of PubMed was searched from July 2017 to October 2019 to identify component trials with a randomized controlled design. Publications from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) were included because they embed the CRediT roles within the authors' metadata rather than solely as a separate paragraph of text.RESULTS:A total of 446 articles involving 4,185 authors were included in the study. Most authors participated in the study's conceptualization (44.9%) and investigation (48.8%), but only a fraction of the authors participated in software management (7.4%). Many CRediT roles were correlated with each other: the strongest correlation was the one between funding acquisition and conceptualization (correlation metric =0.39), followed by the one between conceptualization and methodology (0.37). The authors who acquired funding (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.54-2.76; P<0.001), did project administration (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.17-2.03; P=0.002), performed supervision (OR: 2. 60; 95% CI: 1.93-3.52; P<0.001), wrote the original draft (OR: 4.83; 95% CI: 3.54-6.60; P<0.001), or were the first author (OR: 7.85; 95% CI: 5.71-10.87; P<0.001), were more likely to be the corresponding author. Also, while the original draft writing was significantly associated with the designation of the first author (OR: 37.49; 95% CI: 25.29-57.57; P<0.001), the first author did not perform review and editing (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; P<0.001), supervision (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67; P<0.001), or resource management (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50-1.00; P=0.053). We further propose a novel Contributor Roles Taxonomy for Randomized Controlled Trials (CRediT-RCT) which includes 10 roles.CONCLUSIONS:The present study provides empirical data on the use of CRediT for RCTs, and some limitations of the taxonomy are discussed. We further propose a new CRediT-RCT which includes 10 roles.

Comparing generative and extractive approaches to information extraction from abstracts describing randomized clinical trials

A Scoping Review of Adopted Information Extraction Methods for RCTs

Towards precise PICO extraction from abstracts of randomized controlled trials using a section-specific learning approach

Automated Mass Extraction of Over 680,000 PICOs from Clinical Study Abstracts Using Generative AI: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Jointly Extracting Interventions, Outcomes, and Findings from RCT Reports with LLMs

A Novel Framework to Expedite Systematic Reviews by Automatically Building Information Extraction Training Corpora

Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases

Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review

Metastatic vs. Localized Disease As Inclusion Criteria That Can Be Automatically Extracted From Randomized Controlled Trials Using Natural Language Processing

Understanding Clinical Trial Reports: Extracting Medical Entities and Their Relations

An annotated corpus of clinical trial publications supporting schema-based relational information extraction

Extraction of evidence tables from abstracts of randomized clinical trials using a maximum entropy classifier and global constraints

Automated Extraction of Number of Subjects in Randomised Controlled Trials

PICO entity extraction for preclinical animal literature

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review

The Contributor Roles for Randomized Controlled Trials and the Proposal for a Novel CRediT-RCT.

Inferring Which Medical Treatments Work from Reports of Clinical Trials

Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials With External Controls From Real-World Data: A Systematic Literature Review and Comparison With European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice

Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials

Fast clinical trial identification using fuzzy-search elastic searches: retrospective validation with high-quality Cochrane benchmark

A Pipeline for the Automatic Identification of Randomized Controlled Oncology Trials and Assignment of Tumor Entities Using Natural Language Processing