MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915000621 · doi:10.1177/0272989x19835239

Combining Multiple Treatment Comparisons with Personalized Patient Preferences: A Randomized Trial of an Interactive Platform for Statin Treatment Selection

2019· article· en· W2915000621 on OpenAlexaff
Gareth Hopkin, Anson Au, V.J. Collier, John Yudkin, Sanjay Basu, Huseyin Naci

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLondon School of Economics and Political Science
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineConfidence intervalClinical endpointDecision aidsPhysical therapyPopulationRanking (information retrieval)Intervention (counseling)Scale (ratio)Internal medicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians are often required to make tradeoffs between the relative benefits and harms of multiple treatment options. Combining network meta-analysis results with user preferences can be useful when choosing among several treatment alternatives. OBJECTIVE: Using cholesterol-lowering statin drugs as a case study, we aimed to determine whether an interactive web-based platform that combines network meta-analysis findings with patient preferences had an effect on the decision-making process in a general population sample. METHOD: This was a pilot parallel randomized controlled trial. We used Amazon's Mechanical Turk to recruit adults residing in the United States. A total of 349 participants were randomly allocated to view either the interactive tool (intervention) or a series of bar charts (control). The primary endpoint was decisional conflict, and secondary endpoints included decision self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, and the overall ranking of statins. RESULTS: A total of 258 participants completed the trial and were included in the analysis. On the primary outcome, participants randomized to the interactive tool had significantly lower levels of decisional conflict than those in the control group (difference, -8.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.96 to -4.11 on a 100-point scale; P = 0.001). They also appeared to have higher levels of preparation for decision making (difference, 4.19; 95% CI, -0.24 to 8.63 on a 100-point scale; P = 0.031). No difference was found for decision self-efficacy, although groups were statistically significantly different in how they ranked different statins. CONCLUSION: The findings of our proof-of-concept evaluation suggest that an interactive web-based tool combining published clinical evidence with individual preferences can reduce decisional conflict and better prepare individuals for decision making.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207