MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155627233 · doi:10.2196/27502

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Detection via a Smartphone App: Cross-sectional Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3155627233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ciao-Sin Chen, Judy Kim, Noemi Garg, Harsha Guntupalli, Reshma Jagsi, Jennifer J. Griggs, Michael S. Sabel, Michael P. Dorsch, Brian C. Callaghan, Daniel L. Hertz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeripheral neuropathyPreprintMedicineCross-sectional studySmartphone appmHealthComputer scienceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebPsychological interventionPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Severe chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) can cause long-term dysfunction of the hands and feet, interfere with activities of daily living, and diminish the quality of life. Monitoring to identify CIPN and adjust treatment before it progressing to a life-altering severity relies on patients self-reporting subjective symptoms to their clinical team. Objective assessment is not a standard component of CIPN monitoring due to the requirement for specially trained health care professionals and equipment. Smartphone apps have the potential to conveniently collect both subjective and objective CIPN data directly from patients, which could improve CIPN monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cross-sectional pilot study was to assess the feasibility of functional CIPN assessment via a smartphone app in patients with cancer that have received neurotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 26 patients who had completed neurotoxic chemotherapy were enrolled and classified as CIPN cases (n=17) or controls (n=9) based on self-report symptoms. All participants completed CIPN assessments within the NeuroDetect app a single time, including patient-reported surveys (CIPN20 [European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20-item scale] and PRO-CTCAE [Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events]) and functional assessments (Gait and Balance and 9-Hole Peg Test). Functional assessment data were decomposed into features. The primary analysis was done to identify features indicative of the difference between CIPN cases and controls using partial least squares analyses. Exploratory analyses were performed to test if any features were associated with specific symptom subtypes or patient-reported survey scores. Patient interviews were also conducted to understand the challenges they experienced with the app. RESULTS: Comparisons between CIPN cases and controls indicate that CIPN cases had shorter step length (P=.007), unique swaying acceleration patterns during a walking task, and shorter hand moving distance in the dominant hands during a manual dexterity task (variable importance in projection scores ≥2). Exploratory analyses showed similar signatures associated with symptoms subtypes, CIPN20, and PRO-CTCAE. The interview results showed that some patients had difficulties due to technical issues, which indicated a need for additional training or oversight during the initial app download. CONCLUSIONS: Our results supported the feasibility of remote CIPN assessment via a smartphone app and suggested that functional assessments may indicate CIPN manifestations in the hands and feet. Additional work is needed to determine which functional assessments are most indicative of CIPN and could be used for CIPN monitoring within clinical care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207