MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1443087757 · doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2015.07.006

Challenges That Hinder the Translation of Clinical Advances Into Practice: Results From an International Assessment in Colorectal Cancer

2015· article· en· W1443087757 on OpenAlexaff
Patrice Lazure, John L. Marshall, Sean M. Hayes, Suzanne Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Colorectal Cancer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
FundersMerck KGaA
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Colorectal cancerFamily medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, individualization of treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been improved by: (1) approval of several new agents by national agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (2) rapid advances in mutation analysis. However, data are sparse on the clinical challenges experienced by oncologists as they address the increased complexity created by the growing potential for individualization of CRC treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To identify clinical challenges experienced by oncologists regarding CRC treatment, an international assessment was conducted. A mixed methods approach was used, with the collection and analysis of qualitative (semistructured telephone interviews) and quantitative (online survey) data. Participants were oncologists actively practicing in 1 of 7 targeted countries with a minimum caseload of 10 CRC patients per year. RESULTS: The sample included 358 oncologists from China (n = 68), France (n = 44), Germany (n = 44), Italy (n = 45), Spain (n = 44), the United Kingdom (n = 45), and the United States (n = 68). Mixed methods findings indicated that oncologists' treatment selection is hindered by practice challenges in: (1) mutation analysis and subsequent adaptation of treatment; (2) optimal sequential use of treatment choices; (3) treatment individualization based on patient and tumor profile; (4) management of side effects and toxicities; (5) chemoresistance, cross-resistance, and combinations to overcome resistance; and (6) access to new emerging treatments. CONCLUSION: In the context of increased complexity created by the approval of new agents and advances in mutation analysis, challenges are experienced by practicing oncologists in the individualization of treatment for CRC patients. Details of these challenges should stimulate dialogue among oncologists, and development of interventions to improve clinical practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.254
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Colorectal CancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207