MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Digital monitoring and assessments in patients with glioblastoma.

2022· article· en· W4286296403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yasaman Damestani, Ruiyang Shi, Kai Li, Patrice Melikian, Shelley Haybeck, Gregory R. Mundy, Gursharan Gill, Shijie Tang, Eric Sbar, Tracey Duncan, Sharon Tamir, Eran Shacham, Jatin J. Shah, Sharon Shacham, Patrick Y. Wen, Erin Dunbar, Priya Kumthekar, Howard Colman, Robert Aiken, Nicholas Butowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKaryopharm Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineTemozolomideQuality of life (healthcare)OncologyClinical trialBevacizumabInternal medicineRadiation therapyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2045 Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary tumor with poor prognosis and survival. Patients (pts) experience debilitating symptoms that have a negative effect on quality of life (QoL). A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to facilitate the reduction of morbidity, preserve QoL, and maximize benefits of treatment. Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in class, oral, selective inhibitor of nuclear export that blocks exportin 1 approved for use in multiple myeloma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and has shown activity in GBM. Digital measurements in the KING study through wearable sensors and other devices capture actionable daily data at home for improved care, symptom management, and QoL, are reported here. Methods: XPORT-GBM-029 (NCT04421378) is an ongoing phase 1 dose finding study followed by an open-label randomized phase 2, 5-arm trial to evaluate SEL in combination with standard therapies for newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM (n = 350): radiation+SEL /radiation and temozolomide; radiation and temozolomide±SEL; lomustine±SEL; bevacizumab±SEL; tumor treating field±SEL. The study is conducted at 18 sites in the US and Canada. GBM progression is assessed by standard clinical and imaging as well as QoL measurements by novel digital tools. Four parameters to determine the impact on QoL (cognitive function, lateralization, fatigue, sleep) are measured remotely by smartwatch and smartphone to continuously measure activity and sleep, and to complete a cognitive battery at baseline and before each MRI. Results: To date, pts wearing the smartwatch had higher compliance during the day for activity and gait measures compared to night for sleep measures. Younger pts had better compliance. Over the course of SEL treatment, changes were observed in balance (characterized by double support % and walking asymmetry) and activity level (characterized by step count and walking distance). Of the pts who participated in the cognitive battery (CANTAB) tests, 2 pts had a minor change in cognition measures including psychomotor and processing speed, episodic and spatial working memory, and executive function after 2 SEL treatment cycles. Overall, the CANTAB measures are stable, which align with the mRANO (MRI) results. The correlation between the CANTAB cognition measures and MRI data will be evaluated once more clinical data become available. Ongoing analyses will apply machine learning and statistical tools to determine potential correlations between digital and clinical data, such as physical examinations, AEs, Karnofsky scores, mRANO, NANO, KPS, and PRO QoL questionnaires. Conclusions: This is the first demonstration of digital measurement feasibility in a longitudinal study of pts with GBM. Digital measurements for pts with GBM could provide information on the impact of SEL-based treatment and functional outcomes in clinical trials and increase communication between clinicians and pts, thereby improving QoL and care management. Clinical trial information: NCT04421378.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.382 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→