Paper
OTHER and Oncology dominate condition-family stock, but Healthy volunteers are far harsher on rate than the major named disease portfolios.
Which condition families most often leave older CT.gov study pages without both detailed descriptions and primary outcome descriptions? 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 narrative-gap study as one missing both detailed description and primary outcome description, then ranked large condition families by stock and rate. The broad OTHER bucket led the narrative-gap stock table at 5,124 studies, followed by Oncology at 4,105, Cardiovascular at 3,240, and Healthy volunteers at 3,100. Healthy volunteers had the sharpest large-family narrative-gap rate at 22.0 percent, ahead of Metabolic at 14.8 percent and Renal and urology at 14.6 percent. Condition-family narrative gaps show where registry pages stay text-thin even before readers ask whether results or publications were posted later. Condition families are keyword-derived registry groupings, not formal disease ontologies or mutually exclusive diagnoses for readers. They simplify diverse diagnoses into usable public buckets.