MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767233941 · doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgx008

Including the Patient Voice in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in Integrative Oncology

2017· letter· en· W2767233941 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Monographs · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicinePatient-centered outcomesAlternative medicineIntegrative medicineCognitionOutcomes researchComparative effectiveness researchPersonalized medicineFamily medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryNursingBioinformaticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to describe our experience as patient advisors as we work on a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded project, CHoosing Options for Insomnia in Cancer Effectively (CHOICE). The CHOICE Study is a comparative effectiveness trial comparing acupuncture with cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in cancer survivors. We describe the composition of the patient advisory panel, the patient engagement process, and our contributions throughout the study, and we highlight some of our successes so far. Our motivation to contribute to the research process and our hopes for the future of patient-centered outcomes research are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.288 · 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