MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The implementation of a streamlined process for biomarker testing in medical oncology.

2017· article· en· W2605325696 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laavanya Dharmakulaseelan, Tanya Jorden, Bryan B. Franco, Janice Stewart, Gail Sanders, Patrice Boulianne, Karen Laws, Matthew C. Cheung, Simron Singh, Nadia Ismiil, Maureen Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomarkerUploadDocumentationTest (biology)ReceiptRequisitionMedical physicsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

179 Background: Biomarker testing is increasingly becoming an essential part of standard care. At Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) in Toronto, Canada, our Department of Molecular Services handles some internal biomarker tests, while some tests are referred to citywide labs. The Odette Cancer Centre (OCC) of SHSC is one of the largest cancer centres in Canada, serving over 12,000 new patients per year, of whom many rely on biomarker tests for personalized treatment. We aimed to describe the work systems at the OCC for biomarker testing and reporting, and to initiate system improvements. Methods: This quality improvement initiative occurred in three phases: qualitative descriptive analysis of the current process of biomarker testing, exploration of future state process using LEAN, and implementation of a streamlined process. In phase one, ten medical oncologists, two administrative assistants, and one pathologist were interviewed. A multidisciplinary team was then assembled to investigate and initiate improvements. Results: Tracking results from external labs was managed by individual physicians and hard copy results were submitted to medical records for filing in patient paper charts, compared to internal tests which are posted on the electronic record, making outside tests harder to retrieve later. The current process involved more than 150 different tests with only 44% of results appearing in the hospital electronic record. In June 2016, a standardized process was implemented where a designated laboratory assistant managed requisition forms, sent corresponding specimens to qualified labs, ensured the receipt of results through various electronic tracking tools and validated the subsequent upload to the electronic medical system. Over a four-month implementation period, there were 364 cases/patients with 467 tests requested; 100% of these test results are stored in the electronic record. Conclusions: The lack of standardization of biomarker testing and reporting can have negative implications on quality of care and patient safety. Therefore, streamlining this process and incorporating electronic tracking tools can improve the accessibility of test results to improve the quality of oncology care.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207