MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079217598 · doi:10.1186/ar4664

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) multisite project to develop treatment decision aids for racial/ethnic minorities with lupus nephritis

2014· article· en· W2079217598 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jinoos Yazdany, Maria Dall’Era, Jasvinder A. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Research & Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Arthritis NetworkNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesArthritis SocietyLupus Research AllianceNational Institutes of HealthLupus Foundation of AmericaCentral New York Community Foundation
KeywordsLupus nephritisEthnic groupMedicineOutcomes researchFamily medicineRheumatologyAlternative medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePathologyPolitical scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established to support research that informs US health reform. The PCORI aims to provide patients and the public with information to facilitate healthcare decision-making, including to 'develop, refine, test, and/or evaluate patient-centered approaches, including decision support tools.' Here we describe the first PCORI project in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), in which we aim to develop an individualized patient decision aid for lupus nephritis. The project uses a multiphase approach to develop and test a decision aid, combining comparative effectiveness research, qualitative research with patients, decision-aid prototype development, and a randomized controlled trial. We performed comparative effectiveness research (CER) using state-of-the-art network meta-analyses to assess effectiveness and toxicities of treatments for lupus nephritis. Concurrently, patients with lupus nephritis participated in Nominal Group Technique (NGT) groups. Participants identified facilitators and barriers they faced when considering and taking drugs for lupus nephritis. In the coming year, information from the CER and NGT will be used to create a prototype decision aid, with input from diverse project stakeholders, including design consultants, clinicians, researchers, lupus organizations and patients. We will then perform a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of the decision aid (vs. usual care) in patients with incident or recurrent lupus nephritis. Primary outcomes include measures of decisional conflict and informed choice. Secondary outcomes include the control preferences scale and interpersonal processes of care, and exploratory outcomes will include medication adherence and persistence, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and renal response. The CER and NGT have been completed. Fifty-two patients, who were predominantly African American and Hispanic, participated in NGT groups. Patients identified barriers and facilitators to use of immunosuppressive drugs in two 1-hour sessions, each with three to nine patients. Data from CER and NGT are currently being analyzed. A prototype decision aid will be developed based on the results of the CER and NGT, and subsequently piloted in patients before the randomized trial. The decision aid resulting from this project will be nonproprietary, free of cost and readily available for use both in the United States and internationally. Use of the tool is expected to facilitate patient-centered care for lupus nephritis by providing information that both scientific evidence and patients themselves indicate is critical before commencing therapy. The project aims to improve decision-making and health outcomes for lupus nephritis, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities.

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)0.210
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2100.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Research & TherapySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207