Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS): rationale and design for meta-analyses of individual patient data of randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effect of physical activity and psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective interventions to improve quality of life of cancer survivors are essential. Numerous randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effects of physical activity or psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life of cancer survivors, with generally small sample sizes and modest effects. Better targeted interventions may result in larger effects. To realize such targeted interventions, we must determine which interventions that are presently available work for which patients, and what the underlying mechanisms are (that is, the moderators and mediators of physical activity and psychosocial interventions). Individual patient data meta-analysis has been described as the 'gold standard' of systematic review methodology. Instead of extracting aggregate data from study reports or from authors, the original research data are sought directly from the investigators. Individual patient data meta-analyses allow for adequate statistical analysis of intervention effects and moderators of such effects.Here, we report the rationale and design of the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) Consortium. The primary aim of POLARIS is 1) to conduct meta-analyses based on individual patient data to evaluate the effect of physical activity and psychosocial interventions on the health-related quality of life of cancer survivors; 2) to identify important demographic, clinical, personal, or intervention-related moderators of the effect; and 3) to build and validate clinical prediction models identifying the most relevant predictors of intervention success. METHODS/DESIGN: We will invite investigators of randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effects of physical activity and/or psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life compared with a wait-list, usual care or attention control group among adult cancer survivors to join the POLARIS consortium and share their data for use in pooled analyses that will address the proposed aims. We are in the process of identifying eligible randomized controlled trials through literature searches in four databases. To date, we have identified 132 eligible and unique trials. DISCUSSION: The POLARIS consortium will conduct the first individual patient data meta-analyses in order to generate evidence essential to targeting physical activity and psychosocial programs to the individual survivor's characteristics, capabilities, and preferences. REGISTRATION PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, CRD42013003805.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it