MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408818296 · doi:10.1007/s44250-025-00201-1

Cancer, precision medicine, and Atlantic Canada: A priority setting exercise by the Atlantic Cancer Consortium Patient Advisory Committee

2025· article· en· W4408818296 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Sevtap Savas, Georgia Skardasi, Aaron A. Curtis, Beverly Pausche, Jennifer Coish, J. E. King, C. R. R. Corbett, J WHITTY, Cara C. MacInnis, Angela Hyde

Notice bibliographique

RevueDiscover Health Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Établissements canadiensAtlantic Cancer Research InstituteMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesTerry Fox Research Institute
Mots-clésAdvisory committeeMedicineFamily medicineGerontologyPolitical sciencePublic administration

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Precision Medicine in oncology is a rapidly evolving field aiming to prevent and treat cancers based on detailed patient and tumor characteristics. To better develop research studies, healthcare services and policies, and access to Precision Medicine, integration of insight and experiences of cancer patients and family members is required. In this paper, we describe the patient and family priorities regarding Precision Medicine as identified by the Atlantic Cancer Consortium Patient Advisory Committee (ACC PAC). The ACC PAC was formed in January 2024 and met virtually five times between January and May of 2024. It included a diverse set of 12 patients and family members of patients from across the Atlantic Canadian provinces, a coordinator, an oncologist/clinician-scientist, and a cancer scientist. During meetings, the committee focused on identifying patient and family priorities in Atlantic Canada. Three guests with lived experiences were invited to further diversify the committee’s discussions. Discussions were summarized by the coordinator and cancer scientist. Summaries were then reviewed by the ACC PAC members in September 2024. The ACC PAC identified priorities on two general themes: (1) preventing and addressing cancer’s effects on the whole person/family (for example, by accessible information and support programs), and (2) understanding and accessing Precision Medicine (for example, by research, education, and wider implementation). While the ACC PAC members were optimistic about the utility of Precision Oncology, they also made it clear that it was unlikely to be sufficient without a team-based, holistic and equitable approach to cancer care. Better quality healthcare, education, resources, and effort by all stakeholders were established as essential for effective cancer control and Precision Medicine. A key responsibility falls on the shoulders of funders, organizations, policy-makers and governments in addressing cancer’s effects, improving public knowledge of cancer and Precision Medicine, and improving access to high-quality healthcare and precision medicines. Patient partners and committees such as the ACC PAC can inform and help every step of these efforts with their patient-centered insights and perspectives. In early 2024, we formed the Atlantic Cancer Consortium Patient Advisory Committee (ACC PAC). Our group includes patients and family members affected by cancer from all four provinces of Atlantic Canada, in addition to a coordinator, an oncologist/clinician-scientist, and a cancer scientist. Together, we have identified patient and family priorities as they relate to cancer and Precision Medicine. Here we describe these priorities and our recommendations. Precision Medicine is an emerging cancer care strategy. In this strategy, a person’s circumstances and detailed disease features are considered so that the person can get the best possible care. In cancer, Precision Medicine strategy can help improve treatment success and patient outcomes. Our work indicates that while Precision Medicine strategy is promising, it requires more understanding, research, education, and accessibility. In addition, there is a need for holistic and equitable care that is accessible to all and that involves various care providers that support the patient and family. We recommend that all stakeholders work together efficiently to address the issues faced by the individuals and families affected by cancer in the region. The heaviest responsibility to address these issues lies on healthcare organizations and governments.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,382
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDiscover Health SystemsMême sujetGenetic factors in colorectal cancerTravaux en français237 207