Implications of Agile Values in Software Engineering for Agility in Breast Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Comparative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment has been described as a dynamic and patient-centered approach that emphasizes adaptability and flexibility throughout the treatment process. Breast cancer is complex, with varying subtypes and stages, making it important to tailor treatment plans to each patient's unique circumstances. Breast cancer treatment delivery relies on a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals who collaborate to provide personalized care and quick adaptation to changing conditions to optimize outcomes while minimizing side effects and maintaining the patient's quality of life. However, agility in breast cancer treatment has not been defined according to common agile values and described in language comprehensible to breast cancer professionals. In the rapidly evolving landscape of breast cancer treatment, the incorporation of agile values from software engineering promises to enhance patient care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to propose agile values for breast cancer treatment adopted and adapted from software engineering. We also aim to validate how these values conform to the concept of agility in the breast cancer context through referencing past work. METHODS: We applied a structured research methodology to identify and validate 4 agile values for breast cancer treatment. In the elicitation phase, through 2 interviews, we identified 4 agile values and described them in language that resonates with breast cancer treatment professionals. The values were then validated by a domain expert and discussed in the context of supporting work from the literature. Final validation entailed a domain expert conducting a walkthrough of the 4 identified agile values to adjust them as per the reported literature. RESULTS: Four agile values were identified for breast cancer treatment, and among them, we validated 3 that conformed to the concept of agility. The fourth value, documentation and the quality of documentation, is vital for breast cancer treatment planning and management. This does not conform to agility. However, its nonagility is vital for the agility of the other values. None of the identified agile values were validated as partially conforming to the concept of agility. CONCLUSIONS: This work makes a novel contribution to knowledge in identifying the first set of agile values in breast cancer treatment through multidisciplinary research. Three of these values were evaluated as conforming to the concept of agility, and although 1 value did not meet the concept of agility, it enhanced the agility of the other values. It is anticipated that these 4 agile values can drive oncology practice, strategies, policies, protocols, and procedures to enhance delivery of care. Moreover, the identified values contribute to identifying quality assurance and control practices to assess the concept of agility in oncology practice and breast cancer treatment and adjust corresponding actions. We conclude that breast cancer treatment agile values are not limited to 4. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/53124.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,067 | 0,121 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,051 | 0,009 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».