CT.gov Outcome-Density Gap
2026-03-29 | full-registry ct.gov audit | plots, figures, and e156 bundle
Series
IndustrySponsor ClassesPhasesStructuralVisibilityCohortsConditionsConcentrationRule ErasPubMed AuditOncologyCardiovascularMetabolicSizeGeographyPurposeDelayArchitectureInterventionsCountriesStoppedOutcomesActual Fields
Outcome Dashboard

Sparse outcome structures and missing outcome descriptions mark one of the quietest CT.gov segments

Older studies with zero primary outcomes, sparse secondary outcomes, or missing primary-outcome descriptions remain far quieter than denser outcome structures.

Open dashboardRead E156 paperProtocolSeries hub
Primary counts
Secondary counts
Description field
Visible share

Dashboard

Open dashboard at rootRead E156 micro-paperOpen protocolOpen series hub

Outcome counts and outcome descriptions make the registry look stratified by protocol seriousness, not just sponsor or phase.

How to read the dashboard
Primary 0 no results
100.0%
No primary outcomes
Secondary 0 ghosts
50.7%
Sparse secondary structure
Secondary 10+ visible
27.4%
Dense secondary structure
Description present visible
17.3%
Outcome text present
Primary outcome counts
PRIMARY OUTCOME DENSITY2-year no-results rate by primary outcome count0100.0%174.0%267.7%3-571.9%6+66.3%
The outcome-density curve improves as primary structures get richer.
The zero-primary bucket is the structural edge case that exposes how quiet the registry can become.
Secondary outcome counts
SECONDARY OUTCOME DENSITY2-year no-results rate by secondary outcome count075.5%179.6%2-473.5%5-970.4%10+56.7%
Dense secondary structures are much cleaner than sparse ones, especially against the zero-secondary bucket.
This keeps the density story from depending on primary outcomes alone.
Primary-outcome description field
OUTCOME DESCRIPTIONVisibility contrast for primary-outcome description presenceDescription present65.9%Description missing94.4%Description present ghosts38.0%Description missing ghosts57.8%
Missing outcome descriptions are associated with a very quiet registry profile even when counts are ignored.
This matters because thin text fields often accompany sparse structural outcome declarations.
Read Across Projects

Across The Series

Each project isolates a different dimension of registry opacity, but the point is the contrast between them, not a single leaderboard.

Industry
CT.gov Industry Disclosure Gap

Industry-focused missing-results stock, sponsor backlogs, and structural sparsity inside CT.gov.

Sponsor Classes
CT.gov Sponsor-Class Hiddenness

Sponsor-class comparisons on rate, stock, and structural hiddenness rather than one flattened ranking.

Phases
CT.gov Phase Reporting Gap

Phase-by-phase disclosure gaps showing how silence changes along the development pathway.

Structural
CT.gov Structural Missingness

Field-level missingness across publication links, IPD statements, descriptions, and locations.

Visibility
CT.gov Evidence Visibility Gap

Results-plus-publication visibility states showing how many older trials are fully visible, partly visible, or ghosted.

Cohorts
CT.gov Completion Cohort Debt

Completion-era reporting debt showing how older eligible cohorts drift on no-results and ghost-protocol rates.

Conditions
CT.gov Condition Hiddenness Map

Keyword-classified therapeutic-area hiddenness mapping across common condition families.

Concentration
CT.gov Sponsor Backlog Concentration

Concentration and inequality analysis showing how much unresolved stock sits inside a thin sponsor slice.

Rule Eras
CT.gov Rule-Era Reporting Gap

Policy-era comparisons across pre-FDAAA, FDAAA, and later CT.gov completion cohorts.

PubMed Audit
CT.gov Publication Undercount Audit

Sample-based external PubMed NCT audit testing how often CT.gov no-link records hide an external paper trail.

Oncology
CT.gov Oncology Hiddenness

Oncology-specific CT.gov hiddenness showing where cancer-trial stock, phases, and sponsors still go quiet.

Cardiovascular
CT.gov Cardiovascular Hiddenness

Cardiovascular CT.gov hiddenness showing how heart and vascular studies remain quiet across major phases and sponsors.

Metabolic
CT.gov Metabolic Hiddenness

Metabolic CT.gov hiddenness across obesity, diabetes, and related trial portfolios with large late-phase and NA stock.

Size
CT.gov Enrollment-Size Gap

Enrollment-size gradients showing how older small trials remain much quieter than larger registered studies.

Geography
CT.gov Geography-Scale Visibility

Site and country footprint analysis showing how larger trial geographies map onto much better public visibility.

Purpose
CT.gov Design-Purpose Hiddenness

Primary-purpose and allocation analysis showing which trial intents remain most obscured on CT.gov.

Delay
CT.gov Completion-Delay Debt

Registration-to-completion delay analysis showing short-cycle studies carry the heaviest reporting debt.

Architecture
CT.gov Trial-Architecture Gap

Arm-count and intervention-count analysis showing simpler trial architectures are often the quietest.

Interventions
CT.gov Intervention-Type Gap

Intervention-family analysis showing which declared treatment modalities remain quietest on older CT.gov records.

Countries
CT.gov Country Reporting Map

Named-country visibility analysis showing large geographic divides in older CT.gov reporting debt.

Stopped
CT.gov Stopped-Trial Disclosure Gap

Final-status analysis showing how withdrawn, suspended, and terminated studies remain structurally quieter than completed trials.

Actual Fields
CT.gov Actual-Field Discipline

Closed-study actual-field analysis showing missing actual dates and counts are a strong warning sign for opacity.

Source on GitHub | Project home | Dashboard