Managing Cancer And Living Meaningfully (CALM): randomised feasibility trial in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Managing Cancer And Living Meaningfully (CALM) is a brief individual psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer. In an intervention-only phase 2a trial, CALM showed promising results, leading to the present 2b pilot, which introduces procedures for randomisation and improved rigour in preparation for a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT). Aims To test trial methodology and assess feasibility of a confirmatory RCT. Design A parallel-arm RCT (intervention vs usual care) with 3 and 6-month follow-ups. Assessment of feasibility included rates of consent, randomisation, attrition, intervention non-compliance and usual care contamination. Primary outcome: depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes: major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety, death anxiety, spiritual well-being, attachment anxiety and avoidance, self-esteem, experiential avoidance, quality of life and post-traumatic growth. Bayesian conjugate analysis was used in this low-powered setting. Setting/participants 60 adult patients with advanced cancer from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Results Rate of consent was 32%, randomisation 78%, attrition 25%, non-compliance 37% and contamination 17%. There was support for potential treatment effects on: PHQ-9, OR=1.48, 95% Credible Interval (CRI.95) (0.65, 3.38); MDD, OR=1.56, CRI.95(0.50, 4.84); attachment anxiety, OR=1.72, CRI.95(0.73, 4.03); and attachment avoidance, OR=1.58, CRI.95(0.67, 3.71). There was no support for effects on the seven remaining secondary outcomes. Conclusions A phase 3 CALM RCT is feasible and should aim to detect effect sizes of d=0.40, with greater attention to issues of compliance and contamination. Trial registration number NCT02353546.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".