MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792500185 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx180.261

P134 Home based faecal calprotectin testing: a Canadian user performance evaluation study of IBDoc®

2018· article· en· W2792500185 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alice Moore, A.Y.C. Wong, Raymond Bourdages, Brian Bressler, Vivian Huang, Yvette Leung, Greg Rosenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaCégep de LévisUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalprotectinMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal Calprotectin (FC) is a stool biomarker that has previously been shown to be sensitive and specific for mucosal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The test is limited by the requirement for patients to collect and return stool samples. A previous study showed a sample return rate of 78%. The objective was to determine the usability of IBDoc®, a home based FC test, designed to allow patients to independently determine their FC levels without the need to return a stool sample to a laboratory or doctor’s office and thereby improve test adherence. Patients were prospectively enrolled from three sites across Canada between May to August, 2017. Patients were given a demonstration at the clinic on how to use the IBDoc® prior to performing the test. Patients brought their stool sample to the site to perform one IBDoc® test. Three extracts from the same stool sample were prepared by the study coordinators and sent to a central laboratory site for a comparative reference ELISA measurements. Additionally, the extracts prepared by the patients were also measured by ELISA. Patient values were compared with an average value from three ELISA measurements as well as the IBDoc® categorical values of normal (<100 µg/g), moderate (100–299 µg/g), or high (>300 µg/g). A self-reported patient questionnaire using 5-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”) was used to determine ease-of-use of the IBDoc® device. 61 participants were enrolled in the study of which 34% (21) were male with an average age of 34.8 ± 9.0 years. 51 patients had both IBDoc® and ELISA measurements available for comparison, resulting in agreement across values 88% of the time and which was highly correlated (r = 0.88). Using the qualitative comparison, there were no false positives or negatives. The patients extracts and reference ELISA measurements demonstrated an 89% agreement between values, which was also highly correlated (r =0.97) and with no false positives or negatives in the qualitative comparison. Ninety-seven per cent (59/61) positively responded that they had understood the instruction in the App. 79% (48/61) of patients agreed that the IBDoc® was easy to use with 85% (52/61) of patients strongly agreeing that they were willing use the home kit in the future and an average rating of 4.5 ± 0.89. The FC measurements produced by patients using the IBDoc® were strongly correlated with the standard FC ELISA measurements. The majority of patients found the IBDoc® home kit easy to use and a product that they would likely to use in the future. Further studies are needed to determine whether patients adopt the device for use beyond the clinical trial setting and to assess its impact on patient care for IBD.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.108 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207