MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604093837 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015016

The eSMART study protocol: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate electronic symptom management using the advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) remote technology for patients with cancer

2017· article· en· W2604093837 on OpenAlexaff
Roma Maguire, Lisa McCann, Christine Miaskowski, Grigorios Kotronoulas, Morven Miller, Eileen Furlong, Emma Ream, Jo Armes, Elisabeth Patiraki, Alexander Gaiger, Geir Vegard Berg, Adrian Flowerday, Peter T. Donnan, Paul McCrone, Kathi Apostolidis, Jenny Harris, Stylianos Katsaragakis, Alison R. Buick, Nora Kearney

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthHealth Sciences Centre
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)CancerPhysical therapyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: While some evidence exists that real-time remote symptom monitoring devices can decrease morbidity and prevent unplanned admissions in oncology patients, overall, these studies have significant methodological weaknesses. The electronic Symptom Management using the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) Remote Technology (eSMART) study is designed to specifically address these weaknesses with an appropriately powered, repeated-measures, parallel-group stratified randomised controlled trial of oncology patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 1108 patients scheduled to commence first-line chemotherapy (CTX) for breast, colorectal or haematological cancer will be recruited from multiple sites across five European countries.Patients will be randomised (1:1) to the ASyMS intervention (intervention group) or to standard care currently available at each site (control group). Patients in the control and intervention groups will complete a demographic and clinical questionnaire, as well as a set of valid and reliable electronic patient-reported outcome measures at enrolment, after each of their CTX cycles (up to a maximum of six cycles) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after completion of their sixth cycle of CTX. Outcomes that will be assessed include symptom burden (primary outcome), quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-care self-efficacy, work limitations and cost effectiveness and, from a health professional perspective, changes in clinical practice (secondary outcomes). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will be obtained prior to the implementation of all major study amendments. Applications will be submitted to all of the ethics committees that granted initial approval.eSMART received approval from the relevant ethics committees at all of the clinical sites across the five participating countries. In collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), the trial results will be disseminated through publications in scientific journals, presentations at international conferences, and postings on the eSMART website and other relevant clinician and consumer websites; establishment of an eSMART website (www.esmartproject.eu) with publicly accessible general information; creation of an eSMART Twitter Handle, and production of a toolkit for implementing/utilising the ASyMS technology in a variety of clinical practices and other transferable health care contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02356081.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.008

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations186
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207