MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095568771 · doi:10.3390/cancers12113296

Measuring Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials—Can We Improve Objectivity and Cross Trial Comparisons?

2020· review· en· W3095568771 on OpenAlexaff
Gita Bhat, Katherine Karakasis, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)Context (archaeology)DiseaseIntensive care medicineAnxietyInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a lethal disease for the majority of women diagnosed with it worldwide. For the majority of patients, diagnosis occurs late, in the advanced setting. Disease-induced as well as treatment-related adverse events can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Research to date has captured these data through use of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and, increasingly, has become an area of increased attention and focus in clinical trial reporting. QoL/PRO measurements in EOC clinical trials at different transition points in a patient's journey are increasingly being recognized by patients, clinicians and regulatory agencies as the key determinants of treatment benefit. Various context-specific PROs and PRO endpoints have been described for clinical trials in EOC. Standardized approaches and checklists for incorporating PRO endpoints in clinical trials have been proposed. In a real-world clinical practice setting, PRO/QoL measures, which are meaningful, valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, need to be implemented and used. These may assist by serving as screening tools; helping with the identification of patient preferences to aid in decision making; improving patient-provider communication; facilitating shared decision making. Importantly, they may also improve quality of care through an increasingly patient-centered approach. Potential areas of future research include assessment of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. In good prognostic groups, such as maintenance clinical trials, following patients beyond progression will capture possible downstream effects related to delaying the psychological trauma of relapse, symptoms due to disease progression and side-effects of subsequent chemotherapy. Identifying PRO endpoints in next-generation-targeted therapies (including immunotherapies) also warrants investigation.

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)0.895
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.913
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8950.913
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0220.023
Open science0.0110.020
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.504
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.034 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207