MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostics and treatment for HER2+ mG&CRC: Learning outcomes of GetSMART.

2023· article· en· W4317891455 on OpenAlexaff
Emil Lou, John Marshall, Ginny Jacobs, Matthew Fleming, Anelisa K. Coutinho, Takayuki Yoshino, Monica Augustyniak, Pam McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
FundersDaiichi-Sankyo
KeywordsMcNemar's testMedicineConfidence intervalFamily medicineTest (biology)AccreditationInternal medicineOncologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

82 Background: Gastric/colorectal cancer (G&CRC) are among the most prevalent cancers. Efforts are ongoing to better assess their clinical/genomic factors. HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) testing is strongly recommended in clinical practice to guide treatment. An accredited education program (GetSMART) was launched online (January 2021–April 2022) to equip healthcare providers (HCPs) with knowledge, skills, and confidence to accurately assess/apply molecular testing and therapy options for metastatic G&CRC patients. Methods: A knowledge/confidence-based assessment was embedded in four modules to measure learners’ knowledge mastery (% answering correctly with confidence) pre/post-activity. Self-reported confidence and anticipated performance in clinical practice were measured before/after each module. At the end of program, HCPs were asked about their commitment to change. McNemar’s test was applied to assess statistical significance in pre-post for paired items, and descriptive analysis for non-paired items. Results: Overall, 925 unique HCPs engaged in GetSMART, 31% (n=284) completed all modules, of which 57% (n=163) consented analysis of their data. A statistically significant increase (p<0.05) was measured in percentage of HCPs demonstrating knowledge mastery, confidence, and commitment to change their practice from pre to post across four competencies, except for percentage of HCPs “often”/“always” engaging patients in shared decision-making (SDM) (3, Performance). Largest gains in knowledge mastery/confidence were noted for HCPs’ ability to anticipate/manage adverse events (AE) ( 4A); and for anticipated performance, in HCPs considering appropriate treatment. Post-activity, 66% (98/149) of HCPs intended to change practice based on module content, 83% (70/84) of whom were “highly”/“somewhat” confident to make changes. The activity’s anticipated impact on patients was rated “major”/“moderate” by 69% (103/149) of HCPs. Conclusions: Identification of HER2 aberrations in mG&CRC and its appropriate treatment selection remains challenging in oncology care. This evaluation demonstrated that GetSMART positively impacted HCPs’ knowledge, confidence, and anticipated performance in clinical practice to enhance health outcomes of HER2+ mG&CRC patients. [Table: see text]

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207