MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A descriptive analysis of clinician input and feedback into the CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review process.

2018· article· en· W2893189908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maureen Trudeau, Susan Mirabi, Kendra Christiansen, Kelvin Chan, Alexandra Chambers, Adam E. Haynes, Sohail Mulla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineReimbursementCancerBreast cancerInternal medicineHealth careOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

42 Background: In Canada, through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process, CADTH conducts evaluations of clinical, economic, and patient evidence on cancer drugs to provide public reimbursement recommendations. The pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC) makes these recommendations based on a drug’s overall clinical benefit, alignment with patient values, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of adoption into the health system. Methods: In February 2016, pCODR launched a pilot process that allowed eligible clinicians (individually or as groups) not directly involved in the reviews to participate in the pCODR process, to provide: (1) input at the outset of a review; and, (2) feedback on the Initial Recommendation made by the pERC. Eligible clinicians are those who: (1) are actively practising physicians; (2) are members of a provincial cancer agency or similar body or a national cancer organization; and, (3) submit a declaration of conflict of interest. Results: As of March 31, 2018, 177 oncologists have registered to participate in the pCODR process. Of 43 submissions, 38 (88%) included clinician input. Fifteen submissions received individual input, and 33 received group input, the latter involving three to 13 clinicians or groups. Between April 2016 and March 2018, clinician input by tumour type was as follows: lung (n = 8), leukemia (n = 5), lymphoma (n = 5), gastrointestinal (n = 5), myeloma (n = 4), breast (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), gynecological (n = 2), endocrine (n = 2), sarcoma (n = 1), and genitourinary (n = 1). Clinician input has answered several key questions, including current treatments, eligible patient populations, relevance to clinical practice, sequencing and priority of treatments, and companion diagnostic testing. Conclusions: Clinician engagement has provided value-added information on local issues from a practice perspective and insights into areas of unmet need. Continuous process improvement is important, however, and the pCODR program completed consultations in April 2018 to enhance clinician participation, proposing to: (1) customize the template that clinicians complete; and, (2) broaden the eligibility of clinicians to oncology pharmacists and oncology nurses.

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.463
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.463
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.027 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→