MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cancer patients’ acceptability of incorporating an epidemiology questionnaire within a clinical trial: A patient preference study and subanalysis of the NCIC clinical trials group HN.6 clinical trial.

2014· article· en· W2598212995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sinéad Cuffe, Henrique Hon, Kimberly Tobros, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Yonathan Brhane, Luke Harland, Ehab Fadhel, Lawson Eng, Anthony LaDelfa, John Waldron, Bingshu E. Chen, Wei Xu, Christine Simmons, Zahra Kassam, Lillian L. Siu, Alexander Montenegro, Wendy R. Parulekar, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterBC Cancer AgencyQueen's UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyClinical trialContext (archaeology)Family medicineCancerRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1586 Background: Understanding the influence or impact of epidemiological factors on cancer outcomes in clinical trials can broaden our knowledge of disease, trial populations and therapeutic effects thus leading to improved patient care. However, there is a lack of data on cancer patients’ compliance with an epidemiology questionnaire in the context of a clinical trial. Methods: A wide spectrum of cancer patients from three community, academic and tertiary cancer centres in Ontario, Canada were provided with a hypothetical scenario and surveyed regarding their willingness and preferences to complete an epidemiology questionnaire if incorporated into a cancer therapy trial. Patient compliance with completing a voluntary epidemiology questionnaire was separately determined in the pan-Canadian, multicentre phase III HN.6 clinical trial (NCT00820248) in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: Of 617 cancer patients surveyed, the vast majority were willing to complete an epidemiology questionnaire; 45% would do so unconditionally; 31% would do so provided it did not inconvenience them too much; just 4% would refuse. Patients preferred shorter questionnaires of up to 30-50 questions requiring 10-20 minutes to complete, and administered over 1-3 sessions. Patients were less willing, but still compliant, to answer questions relating to sexual history (71%), and household income (66%) relative to other epidemiological questions (all >90%). 18% of patients thought that epidemiology questionnaires should be a mandatory component of clinical trials, with 31% believing that they may benefit personally from such research. Among the 320 HN.6 study participants, 268 (84%) completed the voluntary epidemiology questionnaire, and compliance averaged 94.8 (+/-1.0)% per question. Conclusions: Cancer patients appear to be very willing to participate in clinical trials that incorporate epidemiology questionnaires in trial design. The high compliance rates with completion of an epidemiology questionnaire in a phase III multicentre study confirmed this finding. Clinical trial information: NCT00820248.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.864
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→