MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120100340 · doi:10.1586/erp.10.15

Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: the experience of the NCIC CTG

2010· review· en· W2120100340 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather‐Jane Au, Jolie Ringash, Michael Brundage, Michael Palmer, Harriet Richardson, Ralph M. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)CancerHealth related quality of lifeIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data are often included in Phase III clinical trials. We evaluate and classify the value added to Phase III trials by HRQoL outcomes, through a review of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group clinical trials experience within various cancer patient populations. HRQoL may add value in a variety of ways, including the provision of data that may contrast with or may support the primary study outcome; or that assess a unique perspective or subgroup, not addressed by the primary outcome. Thus, HRQoL data may change the study's interpretation. Even in situations where HRQoL measurement does not alter the clinical interpretation of a trial, important methodologic advances can be made. A classification of the added value of HRQoL information is provided, which may assist in choosing trials for which measurement of HRQoL outcomes will be beneficial.

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)0.424
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4240.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.852
GPT teacher head0.745
Teacher spread0.108 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations103
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207