MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127348140 · doi:10.2196/22647

A Novel Remote Follow-Up Tool Based on an Instant Messaging/Social Media App for the Management of Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pilot Prospective Self-Control Study

2021· article· en· W3127348140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fan Liu, Peng Guo, Xiangqian Su, Ming Cui, Jianlong Jiang, Suo Wang, Zhouman Yu, Runhe Zhou, Yingjiang Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaTelephone interviewInstant messagingDefecationMedicinePsychologySurgeryWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a common functional disorder that develops after patients with rectal cancer undergo anal preservation surgery. Common approaches to assess the symptoms of patients with LARS are often complex and time-consuming. Instant messaging/social media has great application potential in LARS follow-up, but has been underdeveloped. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare data between a novel instant messaging/social media follow-up system and a telephone interview in patients with LARS and to analyze the consistency of the instant messaging/social media platform. METHODS: Patients with R0 resectable rectal cancer who accepted several defecation function visits via the instant messaging/social media platform and agreed to a telephone interview after the operation using the same questionnaire including subjective questions and LARS scores were included. Differences between the 2 methods were analyzed in pairs and the diagnostic consistency of instant messaging/social media was calculated based on telephone interview results. RESULTS: In total, 21 questionnaires from 15 patients were included. The positive rates of defecation dissatisfaction, life restriction, and medication use were 10/21 (48%), 11/21 (52%), and 8/21 (38%) for telephone interview and 10/21 (48%), 13/21 (62%), and 5/21 (24%) for instant messaging/social media, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between instant messaging/social media and telephone interview in terms of total LARS score (mean 22.4 [SD 11.9] vs mean 24.7 [SD 10.7], P<.21) and LARS categories (Z=-0.264, P=.79); however, instant messaging/social media showed a more negative tendency. The kappa values of 3 subjective questions were 0.618, 0.430, and 0.674, respectively. The total LARS scores were consistent between both groups (Pearson coefficient 0.760, P<.001; category correlation coefficient 0.570, P=.005). Patients with major LARS had highly consistent results, with sensitivity, specificity, kappa value, and P value of 77.8%, 91.7%, 0.704, and .001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Instant messaging/social media can be a major LARS screening method. However, further research on information accuracy and user acceptance is needed before implementing a mature system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009747; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03009747.

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 score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicStoma care and complicationsFrench-language works237,207