MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156618128 · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-154

Facilitating accrual to cancer control and supportive care trials: the clinical research associate perspective

2013· article· en· W2156618128 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David VanHoff, Tanya Hesser, Katherine Patterson Kelly, David R. Freyer, Susan K. Stork, Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAccrualReimbursementCogClinical trialMedicinePerspective (graphical)Control (management)Family medicineInstitutional review boardAccountingHealth careBusinessPolitical scienceInternal medicineManagementSurgeryComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accrual to Cancer Control and Supportive Care (CCL) studies can be challenging. Our objective was to identify facilitators and perceived barriers to successful Children's Oncology Group (COG) CCL accrual from the clinical research associate (CRA) perspective. METHODS: A survey was developed that focused on the following features from the institutional perspective: (1) Components of successful accrual; (2) Barriers to accrual; (3) Institutional changes that could enhance accrual; and (4) How COG could facilitate accrual. The survey was distributed to the lead CRA at each COG site with at least 2 CCL accruals within the previous year. The written responses were classified into themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: 57 sites in the United States (n = 52) and Canada (n = 5) were contacted; 34 (60%) responded. The four major themes were: (1) Staff presence and dynamics; (2) Logistics including adequate numbers of eligible patients; (3) Interests and priorities; and (4) Resources. Suggestions for improvement began at the study design/conception stage, and included ongoing training/support and increased reimbursement or credit for successful CCL enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The comments resulted in suggestions to facilitate CCL trials in the future. Soliciting input from key team members in the clinical trials process is important to maximizing accrual rates.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.239
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.350
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2390.350
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.968
GPT teacher head0.822
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207