MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of urologists experience with abiraterone acetate and with a real-world trial: Results obtained from a Canadian Observational Study in Metastatic Cancer of the Prostate (COSMiC).

2017· article· en· W2600538636 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Feifer, Vincent Fradet, Darrel Drachenberg, Geoffrey Gotto, Ricardo Rendon, Robert Sabbagh, Bobby Shayegan, Brita Danielson, Richard Casey, Anousheh Zardan, Fernando Camacho, Huong Hew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeDalhousie UniversityHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiraterone acetateMedicineObservational studyProstate cancerClinical trialRandomized controlled trialAndrogen deprivation therapyClinical PracticeFamily medicineInternal medicineOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

238 Background: Abiraterone Acetate (AA) is a selective inhibitor of the androgen biosynthesis and has significantly improved OS for mCRPC patients. Canadian Observational Study in Metastatic Cancer of the Prostate (COSMiC) is a Non-Interventional Observational Study pPhase IV clinical trial; NCT02364531) specifically designed to (1) collect real-world drug-specific outcomes (clinical and patient reported outcomes) and (2) assess urologists experience with incorporation of AA in their practice. Here we report data collected from COSMiC trial on the success of AA integration into the urology practice and physicians experience in participating in the trial. Methods: (1) A comprehensive questionnaire was developed to assess urologists experience with (a) integration and usage of AA in their practice and (b) COSMiC trial. (2) Questionnaire was sent to the active trial sites (47 sites) and collected data from 30 sites is summarized here. Results: 93.3% of participants in COSMiC trial were urologists (63.3% community vs. 30% academic). The ease of use and success in integration of AA in urology practice was rated easy by 50% of the participants, easy once they overcame few barriers by 46.7% and challenging by 3.3%. Drug-related barriers identified included time involvement (50%), resource issues such as nursing support (23.3%), and lack of appropriate infrastructure (33.3%). 90% of the active sites indicated that treating mCRPC patients with AA will be part of their practice post-trial. As part of this report we also assessed and identified physicians barriers in participating in COSMiC trial. 86.7% of the sites reported that trials such as COSMiC will add value to the therapeutic area and 93.3% of the sites reported interest in participating in trials of this nature in future. Conclusions: This report indicates that integration of AA in urology practices is considered easy and manageable for most urologists, in some cases after overcoming few initial barriers. There is high interest in participating in future real-world trials of this nature among urologists and such studies add value to the therapeutic area. Clinical trial information: NCT02364531.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→