MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003672419 · doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100081

Assessing physician preferences on future therapeutic options and diagnostic practices in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

2020· article· en· W3003672419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nigel S. Cook, Andreas Geier, Andreas Schmid, Gideon M. Hirschfield, Achim Kautz, Jörn M. Schattenberg, Maria‐Magdalena Balp

Bibliographic record

VenueJHEP Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Liver CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNovartis PharmaGilead SciencesNovartis
KeywordsSteatohepatitisMedicineIntensive care medicineFatty liverDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is currently no data on physician preferences regarding future therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); this study explores these preferences and characteristics that are relevant to physician decision-making when choosing a potential therapy for a patient with NASH. The results were compared with those from a similar patient preference survey which was conducted in parallel. METHOD: Initial exploratory 30-minute telephone interviews were conducted to inform the design of a 15-minute quantitative online specialist physicians survey, containing direct questions and a preference survey. This was based on a best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment to assess the relative importance of different treatment characteristics (attributes), followed by several paired comparison questions to understand the preference for 5 hypothetical product profiles. RESULTS: The answers come from 121 physicians from Canada (n = 31), Germany (n = 30), the UK (n = 30) and the USA (n = 30). The primary driving element in NASH treatment decision-making was efficacy (49.23%), defined as "[hypothetical product] impact on liver status" and "[slowing of] progression to cirrhosis". Physicians reported the common use of non-invasive NASH diagnostic tests and 81% reported performing liver biopsy. In 57% of cases, physicians reported that "concerns related to the available diagnostic methods" limit the number of patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH. CONCLUSIONS: This first physician preference study reveals that efficacy will be the main driver for physicians in selecting future NASH drugs. The findings also confirm the widespread use of non-invasive diagnostic tests and the reluctance to perform confirmatory liver biopsy despite guideline recommendations, mainly due to limited therapeutic options and patient refusal. LAY SUMMARY: This study explores physician preferences in relation to future therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and characteristics that are relevant to physician decision-making when choosing a potential therapy for a patient with NASH. The results of a short online survey completed by 121 specialist physicians determined that the primary factor that influences treatment decision-making is efficacy, and that a wide range of non-invasive techniques are used to diagnose NASH, while confirmatory liver biopsy is not performed by all physicians despite guideline recommendations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJHEP ReportsSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207