Mahmood Ahmad
Tahir Heart Institute
author@example.com

Protocol: CT.gov U.S. Versus Ex-U.S. Sponsor Classes

This protocol groups eligible older closed interventional ClinicalTrials.gov studies into any-U.S., no-U.S., and no-country buckets using recorded locations and then compares sponsor classes within each bucket. Primary outputs compare two-year no-results rates, ghost-protocol rates, and fully visible shares across sponsor classes, with a secondary contrast between industry, OTHER, and NIH portfolios. The aim is to test whether U.S. presence remains a strong structural divider after sponsor class is made explicit. Because the buckets come from recorded study locations, the project measures registry geography structure rather than sponsor domicile, verified enrollment shares, or legal exposure.

Outside Notes

Type: protocol
Primary estimand: 2-year no-results rate across sponsor classes within any-U.S., no-U.S., and no-country older CT.gov portfolios
App: CT.gov U.S. Versus Ex-U.S. Sponsor Classes dashboard
Code: https://github.com/mahmood726-cyber/ctgov-us-vs-exus-sponsor-classes
Date: 2026-03-29
Validation: FULL REGISTRY RUN

References

1. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. National Library of Medicine. Accessed March 29, 2026.
2. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Carr S. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(20):1998-2004.
3. DeVito NJ, Bacon S, Goldacre B. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10221):361-369.

AI Disclosure

This work represents a compiler-generated evidence micro-publication built from structured registry data and deterministic summary code. AI was used as a constrained coding and drafting assistant for interface generation, packaging, and prose refinement, not as an autonomous author. The analytical choices, interpretation, and final outputs were reviewed by the author, who takes responsibility for the content.