Paper
Text asymmetry separates broad-narrative loss from endpoint loss. It shows which portfolios are especially likely to keep the endpoint line while dropping the larger description field.
Which named sponsors show the biggest imbalance between missing detailed descriptions and missing primary-outcome-only text in older CT.gov records? We analysed 249,507 eligible older closed interventional studies from the March 29, 2026 full-registry snapshot and ranked sponsors with at least 100 studies. We compared description-only gaps against primary-only gaps and defined net text asymmetry as description-only minus primary-only counts. Eli Lilly and Company led the sponsor text-asymmetry table at 1,021 net description-only gaps, followed by GlaxoSmithKline at 1,006, Pfizer at 948, and Boehringer Ingelheim at 841. Johnson and Johnson Vision Care had the highest large-sponsor asymmetry rate at 93.4 percentage points, while Industry reached 18,009 net description-only gaps and NIH flipped negative at minus 1,189. The asymmetry lens shows where the broad study narrative disappears much more often than the endpoint sentence, producing text-thin registry pages. Positive asymmetry does not by itself prove concealment; it shows which field disappears more often inside public registry records overall.