MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation of malignant bowel obstruction multidisciplinary case conferences (MCCs) to improve clinical decision making in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) in gynecologic oncology.

2019· article· en· W2947561786 on OpenAlexaff
Gita Bhat, Ainhoa Madariaga, Luisa Bonilla, Yeh Chen Lee, Neesha C. Dhani, Nazlin Jivraj, Tanya Chawla, Sarah Buchanan, Sarah Ferguson, Catherine O′Brien, Preeti Dhar, Eran Shlomovitz, Jenny Lau, Susan Mulumba, Katherine Karakasis, M.K. Chllamma, Amit M. Oza, Stéphanie Lheureux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBowel obstructionGynecologic oncologyOvarian cancerColorectal cancerGeneral surgeryCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18322 Background: Though patients (pts) with gynecological cancer are at higher risk of MBO, clinical management is not well defined. We implemented a coordinated team approach to evaluate MBO at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre inter-professional MBO management program includes nurse led ambulatory symptom management, inpatient treatment algorithm, patient directed bowel management education & MCCs. This study evaluates the utility of MBO MCC on clinical decision making in gynecologic oncology. Methods: Monthly MBO MCCs are conducted to discuss complex clinical management issues. A clinical summary is presented prior to the discussion with each case incorporating radiology review followed by interdisciplinary discussion. In this study, the initial management plan was compared to post-MCC consensus. A change in plan was defined as a consensus plan different from the pre-MCC plan or no definite plan prior to MCC. Barriers to implementation of the consensus were analyzed. Results: From December 2016 to November 2018, 90 pts were discussed in 22 MCCs. Of these, 60 had high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (67%) & 64 had small bowel obstruction (71%). Discussion in MCCs lead to a change in management plan in 49 cases(54%). These changes included recommendations for palliative surgery (25%) or radiation (10%), interventional radiology (23%), pharmacologic management alone (14%), imaging studies (4%) & total parenteral nutrition (TPN) (4%). Chemotherapy continuation, break or regimen changes were recommended in 20%. MCC consensus plan could not be implemented in 11 cases (23%). The barriers were refusal of surgery (8%), interventional radiology procedures (2%), TPN (4%) by patients, functional decline (6%) & inability to create a colostomy due to dense adhesions (2%). During MCC referrals to the dietitian & palliative care team were planned for 16 (18%) & 22 (24%) pts respectively. Conclusions: Interdisciplinary MBO MCCs have a significant impact on decision making in complex MBO cases. Radiology review & group discussion facilitates greater clarity in formulation of a management plan.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.389 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207