MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284892562 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2022.384

Platform, Basket, and Umbrella Trial Designs: Stakeholder Perspectives of Novel Therapeutics

2022· article· en· W4284892562 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Mittmann, Kelvin K.W. Chan, Matthew C. Cheung, Valerie McDonald, Catherine Moltzan, Brent Fraser, Daria O’Reilly, Heather McDonald, Jason Lee, Jean‐Éric Tarride

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactTelus (Canada)Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialProtocol (science)Stakeholder engagementMedicineAlternative medicineStakeholderMedical physicsEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEngineeringInternal medicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in genomic and precision medicine have changed the way oncology clinical trials are designed. Compared to the traditional single tumour-based trial, master protocols, which are often classified as basket, umbrella, or platform trials, conduct studies on multiple subgroups under a single overarching protocol. This paper presents the perspectives of patients, clinicians, public payers, private payers, and industry, which were discussed during the third webinar. The discussion section of this paper summarizes the major points raised by the presenters, as well as questions from the audience and answers from the presenters.

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)0.615
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.514
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6150.514
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.030
Scholarly communication0.0270.023
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.068 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207