MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact and perception of mandatory tumor biopsies (Bx) for correlative studies in clinical trials of novel anticancer agents

2005· article· en· W4236074251 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Agulnik, Amit M. Oza, Gregory R. Pond, L.L. Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMedicineClinical trialHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression (economics)PsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6006 Background: Trials of molecular targeted agents often require serial tumor bx to acquire tissues for correlative studies. Methods: Three complementary, self-administered questionnaires were circulated to: trial patients (TPs) who had previously undergone serial research-related bx, clinic patients (CPs) who had prior diagnostic but not research-related bx, and academic medical oncologists (MOs) in Canada. Questionnaires focused on 4 domains: demographics, bx-attributed risks, bx-provoked anxiety, and ethics of additional unrelated testing. Results: 10/14 (72%) TPs, 231/325 (71%) CPs and 127/206 (62%) MOs responded. Correlative testing of bx specimens was considered worthwhile by 96% of MOs. Clinical trials with mandatory bx were acceptable to 43% of CPs. Side effects from a previous bx, primarily pain, were reported by 30% of TPs and 35% of CPs. In assessing risks attributed to the bx, all 3 groups agreed that pain was the most acceptable, and bleeding the least. A 5–10% risk of a major bx complication was reported to be acceptable to 1% of MOs and 24% of CPs. Based on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 30% of TPs reported anxiety prior to their initial research-related bx, while 56% of CPs reported anxiety prior to their previous diagnostic bx. For all patients, anxiety level decreased in 28%, remained the same in 65%, increased in 9%, after their bx (p<0.001). Over 90% of MOs felt the average patient would have borderline anxiety prior to their bx. Among the patients, 96% would authorize their samples for further unrelated research, 84% would agree to genetic testing and 93% wish to be informed of the results. Among the MOs, all considered it ethical to request for further unrelated research testing on the specimens, 83% would request genetic testing and 63% felt that patients should be informed of the results. Conclusions: Patients and MOs have different views about mandatory tumor bx. While nearly all MOs see the value in the bx, their threshold for acceptable risk is lower and they anticipate more associated anxiety than patients. Patients tend to tolerate the bx well, have average associated anxiety and readily allow their specimens to be tested for research purposes. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→