Paper
OTHER and Oncology dominate condition-family stock, but Healthy volunteers are far harsher on detailed-description rate than the major named disease portfolios.
Which condition families most often leave older CT.gov study pages without detailed descriptions, removing the broad narrative paragraph for readers? We analysed 249,507 eligible older closed interventional studies from the March 29, 2026 full-registry snapshot using one condition-family label per study. We defined a detailed-description gap as a missing detailed description field, then ranked large condition families by stock and rate. The broad OTHER bucket led the condition-family detailed-description-gap stock table at 18,641 studies, followed by Oncology at 12,321, Cardiovascular at 8,808, and Healthy volunteers at 7,082. Healthy volunteers had the highest large-family detailed-description-gap rate at 50.2 percent, ahead of Immunology and dermatology at 41.7 percent and Renal and urology at 38.3 percent. Condition-family detailed-description gaps show where the broad study narrative disappears most often in major therapeutic areas, not only fringe portfolios. Condition families are keyword-derived registry groupings, not formal disease ontologies or mutually exclusive diagnoses across all studies. They simplify diagnoses into public buckets.