MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W153029062 · doi:10.12788/jcso.0073

Practice gaps and barriers to optimal care of hematologic malignancies in the United States

2014· article· en· W153029062 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Murray, Kevin L Obholz, Andrew Bowser, Jim Mortimer, Patrice Lazure, Eric D. Peterson, Jamés O. Armitage, Brigitte K. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Treating patients with hematologic malignancies can be challenging for physicians because of the rapidly evolving standards of care and relatively low incidence of these diseases. OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical challenges among hematologists and medical oncologists regarding the provision of care to patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), or B-cell lymphomas. Methods Hematologists and medical oncologists in active practice in the United States and who have a case load of ≥ 1 patient a year with CML, ALL, or B-cell lymphoma were recruited. The initial qualitative phase consisted of an online case-based survey followed by an interview exploring the contextual and behavioral factors that influence treatment decisions (n = 27). The analysis of qualitative data then informed a quantitative phase, in which 121 participants completed an online survey composed of case vignettes, multiple choice, and semantic differential rating scale questions. The respondents' answers were compared with recommendations from treatment guidelines and faculty experts. RESULTS: A higher frequency of bone marrow biopsies was reported compared with expert faculty recommendations by 74% of oncologists. Many respondents failed to recognize the clinical relevance of BCR-ABL mutations other than T315I. Respondents reported perceiving difficulties in individualizing treatment and interpreting response to treatment in patients with ALL and B-cell lymphomas. Fewer than 30% of respondents recognized the mechanisms of action of 5 of the 9 promising investigational agents presented. LIMITATIONS: Participant self-selection bias is a possibility because participation was voluntary. Practice gaps are not based on clinical data, but hypothetical case situations and self-report. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study can guide education to address the identified challenges in caring for patients with hematologic malignancies and improving patient care. FUNDING: This needs assessment was financially supported with an educational research grant from Pfizer Medical Education Group to the Annenberg Center for Health Sciences at Eisenhower.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community and Supportive OncologySame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207