MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294531521 · doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00380-8

Public Interest Group on Cancer Research: a successful patient–researcher partnership in Newfoundland and Labrador

2022· article· en· W4294531521 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sevtap Savas, Holly Etchegary, Teri Stuckless, Cindy Whitten, Jason T. Wiseman, Derrick Bishop, J. E. King, Janine Cutting, Darrell Peddle

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreCanadian Cancer SocietyMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachGeneral partnershipPublic engagementPublic relationsFocus groupCommunity engagementEmpowermentPublic healthMedicinePolitical scienceNursingBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Partnering with patients and family members affected by cancer is essential for meaningful research, public engagement and outreach, and advocacy activities. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to create a public interest group through an academic-community partnership focused on cancer research and public engagement. METHODS: A purposeful recruitment process was implemented to ensure a diverse and inclusive group. The group meets virtually and communicates by email. The group's activities focus on identifying the needs, priorities, and interests of cancer-affected individuals in the province; consultations; and designing research projects and public outreach activities together. Comprehensive meeting minutes are kept and used to distill discussion points. The work of the group is disseminated through a variety of channels. RESULTS: The public interest group includes 12 cancer patient and family member representatives, in addition to researchers. Discussions by the interest group identified key themes related to: (1) equity issues and regional disparity in provincial oncocare; (2) information needs; (3) need for patient empowerment and public understanding; and (4) family member and partner needs and experiences. To date, the group has co-designed a cancer research proposal and a public engagement/outreach activity. The group also provides consultations on cancer-related projects/public engagement activities and members act as patient partners in specific research and public engagement proposals. The group evolves over time, and increasingly advocates on behalf of cancer patients and families. Retention and satisfaction of the public partners with group activities have been high. The group's work and findings are disseminated to the Provincial Cancer Care Program, as well as to public and scientific stakeholders through local media, academic conferences and presentations, and a dedicated website. CONCLUSION: Public Interest Group on Cancer Research represents a highly successful patient-researcher partnership in oncology. It designs meaningful and patient-oriented studies and outreach activities in cancer. It also elevates and widely supports cancer patient and family voice.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.016
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.822
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207