The Use of Telemedicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Connect-Patient-to-Doctor Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is currently being adopted for the management of patients in routine care. However, its use remains limited in the context of clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of telemonitoring and patient-reported outcomes collection in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: The patients who were included in an interventional oncology clinical trial were eligible. The patients were registered with a digital tool to respond to a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire (ePRO) based on CTCAE (The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, National Cancer Institute), version 5.0, personalized to their pathology and treatment. An algorithm evaluated the health status of the patient based on the reported adverse events, with a classification in 4 different states (correct, compromise, state to be monitored, or critical state). The main objective was to evaluate the feasibility of remote monitoring via a connected platform of patients included in a clinical trial. RESULTS: From July 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, 39 patients were included. The median age was 71 years (range 41-94); 74% (n=29) were male, and 59% (n=23) had metastatic disease. Out of the 969 ePRO questionnaires completed over the course of the study, 77.0% (n=746) were classified as "correct," 10.9% (n=106) as "compromised," and 12.1% (n=117) as "to be monitored" or "critical." The median response time was 7 days (IQR 7-15.5), and 76% (25/33) of the patients were compliant. Out of the 35 patients who answered a satisfaction questionnaire, 95% (n=33) were satisfied or very satisfied with the tool, and 85% (n=30) were satisfied with their relationship with the health care team. There were 5 unscheduled hospitalizations during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Remote monitoring in clinical trials is feasible, with a high level of patient participation and satisfaction. It benefits patients, but it also ensures the high quality of the trial through the early management of adverse events and better knowledge of the tolerance profile of experimental treatments. This e-technology will likely be deployed more widely in our clinical trials.
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 | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".