https://www.selleckchem.com/ALK.html BACKGROUND Clinical trials are expensive and often require funding from the pharmaceutical industry (PI). We aimed to compare studies funded by the PI with studies funded by other sources in terms of costs, reported results and strength of evidence. METHODS We searched PubMed for clinical trial reports on metastatic NSCLC published between 2012 and 2017. We divided all studies into two groups studies funded by the PI or by other sources. The primary endpoint was to compare the evidence strength of each group. Secondary endpoints were to compare the number of patients included, the number and costs of innovative drugs studied, whether there was preferential reporting of positive results in the experimental arm and the risk of bias. RESULTS We found 3,004 studies and, of these, analyzed 477 studies (275 sponsored by the PI and 202 funded by other sources). 85,328 patients overall were included (64,434 in studies sponsored by the PI and 20,894 in studies with other funding sources; p less then 0.001). The studies funded by the PI had stronger evidence (p less then 0.001), evaluated more innovative therapies (72% versus 36%; p less then 0.001) and resulted in a higher proportion of open access manuscripts (63% versus 47%; p less then 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding the reporting of experimental arm superiority between the two groups or the risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS Compared with other sources of funding, studies funded by the PI in the lung cancer field collected stronger evidence, assessed more expensive and innovative therapies and seem to equally emphasize positive and negative results. Recent evidence suggests that the human brain automatically constructs a rich model of other people's attention, beyond registering low-level cues such as someone else's gaze direction. This model is not a physically accurate representation of attention, but instead appears to contain simplifying and physically incoherent feat