IMplementing Predictive Analytics towards efficient COPD Treatments (IMPACT): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized impact study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Personalized disease management informed by quantitative risk prediction has the potential to improve patient care and outcomes. The integration of risk prediction into clinical workflow should be informed by the experiences and preferences of stakeholders, and the impact of such integration should be evaluated in prospective comparative studies. The objectives of the IMplementing Predictive Analytics towards efficient chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments (IMPACT) study are to integrate an exacerbation risk prediction tool into routine care and to determine its impact on prescription appropriateness (primary outcome), medication adherence, quality of life, exacerbation rates, and sex and gender disparities in COPD care (secondary outcomes). METHODS: IMPACT will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will include the systematic and user-centered development of two decision support tools: (1) a decision tool for pulmonologists called the ACCEPT decision intervention (ADI), which combines risk prediction from the previously developed Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool with treatment algorithms recommended by the Canadian Thoracic Society's COPD pharmacotherapy guidelines, and (2) an information pamphlet for COPD patients (patient tool), tailored to their prescribed medication, clinical needs, and lung function. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in two outpatient respiratory clinics to evaluate the impact of the decision support tools on quality of care and patient outcomes. Clusters will be practicing pulmonologists (n ≥ 24), who will progressively switch to the intervention over 18 months. At the end of the study, a qualitative process evaluation will be carried out to determine the barriers and enablers of uptake of the tools. DISCUSSION: The IMPACT study coincides with a planned harmonization of electronic health record systems across tertiary care centers in British Columbia, Canada. The harmonization of these systems combined with IMPACT's implementation-oriented design and partnership with stakeholders will facilitate integration of the tools into routine care, if the results of the proposed study reveal positive association with improvement in the process and outcomes of clinical care. The process evaluation at the end of the trial will inform subsequent design iterations before largescale implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05309356.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".