Merging of the National Cancer Institute–funded cooperative oncology group data with an administrative data source to develop a more effective platform for clinical trial analysis and comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative oncology group trials have improved overall survival for children with cancer from 10% to 85% and have set standards of care for adults with malignancies. Despite these successes, cooperative oncology groups currently face substantial challenges. We are working to develop methods to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these trials. Specifically, we merged data from the Children's Oncology Group (COG) and the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) to improve toxicity monitoring, to estimate treatment-associated resource utilization and costs, and to address important clinical epidemiology questions. METHODS: COG and PHIS data on patients enrolled on a phase III COG trial for de novo acute myeloid leukemia at 43 PHIS hospitals were merged using a probabilistic algorithm. Resource utilization summary statistics were then tabulated for the first chemotherapy course based on PHIS data. RESULTS: Of 416 patients enrolled on the phase III COG trial at PHIS centers, 392 (94%) were successfully matched. Of these, 378 (96%) had inpatient PHIS data available beginning at the date of study enrollment. For these, daily blood product usage and anti-infective exposures were tabulated and standardized costs were described. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that patients enrolled in a cooperative group oncology trial can be successfully identified in an administrative data set and that supportive care resource utilization can be described. Further work is required to optimize the merging algorithm, map resource utilization metrics to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for monitoring toxicity, to perform comparative effectiveness studies, and to estimate the costs associated with protocol therapy.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.413 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".