Determining the Research Priorities for Adult Primary Brain Tumours in Australia and New Zealand: A Delphi Study with Consumers, Health Professionals, and Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this project was to determine research priorities, barriers, and enablers for adult primary brain tumour research in Australia and New Zealand. Consumers, health professionals, and researchers were invited to participate in a two-phase modified Delphi study. Phase 1 comprised an initial online survey (n = 91) and then focus groups (n = 29) which identified 60 key research topics, 26 barriers, and 32 enablers. Phase 2 comprised two online surveys to (1) reduce the list to 37 research priorities which achieved consensus (>75% 2-point agreement) and had high mean importance ratings (n = 116 participants) and (2) determine the most important priorities, barriers, and enablers (n = 90 participants). The top ten ranked research priorities for the overall sample and sub-groups (consumers, health professionals, and researchers) were identified. Priorities focused on: tumour biology, pre-clinical research, clinical and translational research, and supportive care. Variations were seen between sub-groups. The top ten barriers to conducting brain tumour research related to funding and resources, accessibility and awareness of research, collaboration, and process. The top ten research enablers were funding and resources, collaboration, and workforce. The broad list of research priorities identified by this Delphi study, together with how consumers, health professionals, and researchers prioritised items differently, and provides an evidence-based research agenda for brain tumour research that is needed across a wide range of areas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".