A study protocol for quantifying patient preferences in neuromuscular disorders: a case study of the IMI PREFER Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Patient preference studies are increasingly used to inform decision-making during the medical product lifecycle but are rarely used to inform early stages of drug development. The primary aim of this study is to quantify treatment preferences of patients with neuromuscular disorders, which represent serious and debilitating conditions with limited or no treatment options available. Methods: This quantitative patient preferences study was designed as an online survey, with a cross-over design. This study will target two different diseases from the neuromuscular disorders disease group, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM). Despite having different physio-pathological pathways both DM1 and MM manifest in a clinically similar manner and may benefit from similar treatment options. The sample will be stratified into three subgroups: two patient groups differentiated by age of symptom onset and one caregivers group. Each subgroup will be randomly assigned to complete two of three different preference elicitation methods at two different time points: Q-methodology survey, discrete choice experiment, and best-worst scaling type 2, allowing cross-comparisons of the results across each study time within participants and within elicitation methods. Additional variables such as sociodemographic, clinical and health literacy will be collected to enable analysis of potential heterogeneity. Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol has undergone ethical review and approval by the Newcastle University R&D Ethics Committee (Ref: 15169/2018). All participants will be invited to give electronic informed consent to take part in the study prior accessing the online survey. All electronic data will be anonymised prior analysis. This study is part of the Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (IMI-PREFER) project, a public-private collaborative research project aiming to develop expert and evidence-based recommendations on how and when patient preferences can be assessed and used to inform medical product 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.120 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".