MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2405216291 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.1688.1688

Implementing a Computerized Care Process Management System To Determine The Feasibility Of Utilizing, and Concomitantly Validating, a Prediction Tool For The Risk Of Venous Thromboembolism In Cancer Patients

2013· article· en· W2405216291 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Ben Lustig, Philip S. Wells, R Rodriguez, Isabel Dao

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCancerRisk assessmentInternal medicineAmbulatoryIntensive care medicineEmergency medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Cancer patients have a significantly higher risk of developing a venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to non-cancer patients. VTE result in reduced quality of life, and increased morbidity and mortality. However, studies suggest VTE risk among ambulatory cancer patients varies widely. Therefore, although several studies demonstrate that prophylaxis is effective, given the cost and concomitant bleeding risk it is not the standard of care to administer prophylaxis. Khorana and colleagues have developed a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated VTE in cancer patients. However, Methods to implement this model into clinical practice have not been developed. The purpose of this study was to create and assess an innovative computerized Care Process Management System(CPMS ) (that would calculate in real-time the risk for VTE by utilizing clinical information and laboratory tests contained in patient electronic records, based on the proposed predictive model, notifying staff to enable patient education about VTE risk and to concomitantly validate the model. Over a four month period new cancer referrals to the Ottawa Regional Cancer Center, the sole provider of cancer care for a region of 1.2 million inhabitants, were assessed by the Khorana tool (Blood 2008;111:4902-7). This model consists of the following five predictive variables: (1) site of cancer (2 points for very high-risk site (brain, stomach, pancreas), 1 point for high-risk site (lung, lymphoma, gynecologic, bladder, and testicular), (2) platelet count ≥350 x 109/L, (3) hemoglobin <10 g/dL and/or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, (4) leukocyte count >11 x 109/L, and (5) body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 (1 point each). High risk was defined as a score or ≥2. We approached all new cancer patients but excluded patients if they were: (1) tumours not included as very high risk or high risk according to the prediction model; 2) to be followed up or treated at another facility other than The Ottawa Hospital; 3) had a confirmed VTE/arterial embolism (stroke or peripheral arterial embolism) within the prior 3 months; 4) were receiving continuous anticoagulation; 5) had previously been treated for cancer. Patients with a very high risk tumour site were approached first. Those with other tumour sites had the predictive variables calculated through the CPMS. In all cases the clinic nurse was notified electronically of when patients presented to clinic and of their risk. Patients’ demographics, medical history, malignancy characteristics, diagnostic laboratory features, imaging information, BMI and plan of anti-cancer treatment were documented prior to initiation of their cancer treatment. Educational material was provided to high risk patients regarding the signs and symptoms of VTE and their risk for VTE, in order to prevent delayed diagnosis. Patients were followed-up at 3 months (±7 days) following the initial consult to determine if they were diagnosed with VTE. 699 new referrals were determined to have a cancer diagnosis for the first time as identified by the computer software and qualified for our study and 580 were eligible. On the basis of very high risk tumour site alone, 71 patients were initially deemed at high risk of developing a VTE (score ≥2) and 509 patients were deemed at low risk (score ≤1). Among the initial cohort of patients at low risk, 72 were elevated to high risk based on BMI and pre-chemotherapy blood work. In total 25% had high risk for VTE and during the 3-month follow up period, 16 of the 143 (11%) developed a VTE which further validates the Khorana model for identifying high risk patients. Patients uniformly were receptive to receiving counseling about their VTE risk at enrolment. In summary, we have demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing a computerized CPMS linked to the electronic medical record to populate a predictive tool that is based on clinical information and laboratory data to identify and stratify cancer patients into high and low risk of developing a VTE. Our future aim is to utilize this innovative tool in clinical practice to enable 1) identification of all cancer patients at high risk for VTE, 2) education that will potentially decrease the time between symptom onset, VTE investigation, and treatment, and 3) enrollment in randomized trials of VTE prophylaxis. Disclosures: Wells: bayer healthcare: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Biomerieux: Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,064

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,040
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→