About

ClinicalTrials.gov is the registry the U.S. National Institutes of Health runs. It is authoritative and it is complete, and it is also hard to read: a study record is a wall of regulatory fields written for the people filing them, not for the people trying to understand the trial.

So the first thing this site does is render the same record for the person reading it. That part is table stakes.

The second thing is the point. Trial information was built to be recorded, not discussed. A record tells you when a study started, who sponsors it and what it measures. It rarely tells you what someone actually wants to know:

• Is this study really still recruiting?
• Why was it terminated?
• When will the results be out?
• How does it compare with the other trial for the same condition?
• What does the investigator make of it?
• Who do I ask?

Those conversations do happen. They happen in email, in conference corridors, on investor calls, in patient groups, in replies nobody else ever sees. The answer exists — it just reaches one person and then disappears.

This site gives every trial a public page for them, anchored to its NCT number, so an answer given once is there for the next person who asks. It is why a question marked for a study team is mailed to the contact address the registry publishes, and why the reply lands in the open thread rather than in one inbox.

The registry deliberately does not offer a place to talk, and that is a reasonable decision for a registry to make. It leaves a gap all the same.

Any ClinicalTrials.gov study URL works here if you swap gov for gg:

clinicaltrials.gg/study/NCT04280705

That is the whole distribution idea. Every link to a study that already exists — in a paper, an email, a forum post, a press release — becomes a link to a readable version of the same record by editing two characters. It also means the paths on this site are not ours to choose: they are whatever the registry uses.

Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, or ClinicalTrials.gov. The similarity of the name is the mechanic described above, and it is exactly why this page says so plainly.

The registry remains the authority for every record. Where this site and the registry disagree, the registry is right and we have a bug.

Not medical advice. A study appearing here is not a recommendation to enrol in it, and nothing written here — including by someone carrying a study team badge — is a substitute for talking to your own doctor.

ClinicalTrials.gg is built and run by Yongjang Jo, an individual, in Seongnam, Republic of Korea. It is not a company, and there is no team behind the word “we” on this site — that is one person and worth knowing when you read anything here.

I spent four and a half years as a machine learning engineer in B2B healthcare, working with clinical trial data every day. What stayed with me is how closed the field is about information that is already public: the records are open, and it is still hard to find out what is actually happening with a given trial — whether it is moving, whether anyone can still join, what the people running it make of it. There was nowhere those questions could be asked in the open, so I built one.

I would like it to be useful to more than one kind of reader: to someone with a rare disease looking for a study they could join, to a clinician trying to explain one to a patient, to a researcher weighing their own work against what else is running, and to the sponsors and investors who need to see how a programme is moving. Those people rarely read the same page today. This is an attempt at one they could share.

You can reach me at contact@clinicaltrials.gg. Corrections to a record are best reported to ClinicalTrials.gov — they hold the data — but tell me too if this site is showing something the registry does not.

Being straight about what is finished seems more useful than a feature list, so:

Working

• Every study record, refreshed on the registry’s own weekday cadence — see where this data comes from.
• Search by condition, status, phase and country.
• A discussion thread on every study, with moderation.
• Study team badges, verified against the contact address the registry publishes on that study’s own record.
• Following a study, and an email digest of what changed.

Not yet

• Browsing by condition, sponsor or location as pages of their own — only search reaches them today.
• Roles beyond the study team badge. Everyone else is a member, with no title next to their name, on purpose: an unverified “sponsor” label would be worse than none.
• The discussion is new and mostly empty. That is the honest state of it rather than a soft launch.