MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capturing uveal melanoma (UM) global practice patterns and clinical outcomes in the collaborative ocular melanoma natural history (OMNi) study (NCT04588662).

2022· article· en· W4281713156 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph J. Sacco, Marlana Orloff, Sapna P. Patel, Max Conway, Li‐Anne Lim, Lotte S. Fog, David Sia, John D. McKenzie, Daniel J. McKay, Roderick O’Day, Timothy Isaacs, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Ryan J. Sullivan, Sarah Kin, Femida Hussein Gwadry-Sridhar, Anthony M. Joshua, Richard D. Carvajal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCanada Health Infoway
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyInformed consentBiobankClinical trialInstitutional review boardFamily medicineObservational studyNatural history studyData collectionSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS9610 Background: Geographical differences in the management of primary UM, surveillance for recurrence, and care of metastatic disease have emerged based upon local expertise, treatment availability and insurance coverage. We have initiated accrual to OMNi (NCT04588662), an ambispective database developed to provide contemporary real-world data of UM, capturing its natural history and serving as a virtual biospecimen repository. The overall objectives of OMNi are to characterize regional/international UM management practice patterns and associated clinical outcomes in an effort to inform best practice recommendations. Methods: OMNi utilizes the Pulse Infoframe Healthie platform, a globally compliant platform which enables the structured collection of data mapped to Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. The data fields created permit longitudinal capture of data including baseline patient and tumor characteristics, treatment of primary lesion and outcomes, surveillance patterns, time to disease recurrence, treatment of recurrent disease with outcomes, and survival. Inclusion criteria include a diagnosis of uveal melanoma and the ability to provide written informed consent for participation in the prospective registry or an institutional waiver by the IRB/ethics committee for retrospective data collection without written informed consent. We have initiated data collection at 3 US and 3 Australian centers, with 184 patients enrolled to date. Based upon feasibility assessment, we anticipate retrospective data entry for ̃2,000 patients and annual recruitment of ̃700 patients once all centers are active. Data collected in this OMNi collaboration, which will include additional US, UK and Australian sites, will facilitate new insights, hypothesis testing, as well as clinical trial development and conduct, and through a governance structure, will be made accessible for research. The OMNi dataset can serve and aid in interpretation of clinical trial outcomes in the real-world, facilitate cutting-edge research, and accelerate the development of diagnostics and therapeutics. Clinical trial information: NCT04588662.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207