MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556795685 · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0514-3

Implementing an evidence-based computerized decision support system linked to electronic health records to improve care for cancer patients: the ONCO-CODES study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2556795685 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Moja, Alessandro Passardi, Matteo Capobussi, Rita Banzi, Francesca Ruggiero, Koren Hyogene Kwag, Elisa Giulia Liberati, Massimo Mangia, Ilkka Kunnamo, Michela Cinquini, Roberto Vespignani, Americo Colamartini, Valentina Di Iorio, Ilaria Massa, Marien González‐Lorenzo, Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Peter Nyberg, Jeremy Grimshaw, Stefanos Bonovas, Oriana Nanni

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersRegione LombardiaMinistero della Salute
KeywordsMedicineClinical decision support systemSpecialtyHealth informaticsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialHealth careDecision support systemHealth services researchFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingPublic healthAlternative medicineInternal medicineData miningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are computer programs that provide doctors with person-specific, actionable recommendations, or management options that are intelligently filtered or presented at appropriate times to enhance health care. CDSSs might be integrated with patient electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: The Computerized DEcision Support in ONCOlogy (ONCO-CODES) trial is a pragmatic, parallel group, randomized controlled study with 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial is designed to evaluate the effectiveness on clinical practice and quality of care of a multi-specialty collection of patient-specific reminders generated by a CDSS in the IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) hospital. We hypothesize that the intervention can increase clinician adherence to guidelines and, eventually, improve the quality of care offered to cancer patients. The primary outcome is the rate at which the issues reported by the reminders are resolved, aggregating specialty and primary care reminders. We will include all the patients admitted to hospital services. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: The results of our study will contribute to the current understanding of the effectiveness of CDSSs in cancer hospitals, thereby informing healthcare policy about the potential role of CDSS use. Furthermore, the study will inform whether CDSS may facilitate the integration of primary care in cancer settings, known to be usually limited. The increasing use of and familiarity with advanced technology among new generations of physicians may support integrated approaches to be tested in pragmatic studies determining the optimal interface between primary and oncology care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02645357.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.014

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.453 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplementation ScienceSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207