MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323570004 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.100937

79MO Developing international consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: The DEFINE (DosE FIndiNg Extensions) study

2023· article· en· W4323570004 on OpenAlexaff
O. Solovyeva, Munyaradzi Dimairo, C. Weir, Johann S. de Bono, A. Bedding, A-W. Chan, A. Espinasse, T.R.J. Evans, S.W. Hee, S. Hopewell, Sam Hughes, T. Jaki, Andrew Kightley, S. Lee, A. Mander, Divyangkumar Patel, K. Rantell, J. Rekowski, M. Ursino, C. Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsDelphi methodClinical trialProtocol (science)DelphiMedicineCitationChecklistMedical physicsMedical educationAlternative medicineFamily medicinePsychologyComputer scienceLibrary sciencePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it can be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. The features of EPDF trials are not well addressed in both guidelines and their extensions. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols and reports. The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were further enriched via a review of the published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and experts’ recommendations. Following a 2-round modified Delphi process, an international consensus meeting was held. The resultant SPIRIT-DEFINE and the CONSORT-DEFINE checklists are then piloted prior to being finalised. Tailored to cover the specific features of EPDF trials, the Delphi survey included new or modified candidate items for SPIRIT (n = 36) and CONSORT (n = 44) extensions. 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders participated in Round 1 from 24 countries, and 151 stakeholders in Round 2. The Delphi results and a subsequent consensus meeting led to the recommendation of 31 and 36 candidate items for the SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE checklists respectively. New items added include starting dose and dosing regimens with rationale, dose [de-]escalation strategies and decision criteria. International stakeholders are currently testing the checklists, and their feedback will be integrated into the final guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address the essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and their reporting of the results. These will promote transparency, completeness and reproducibility of methods and ultimately contribute to reducing research waste and enhancing patient care and safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.872
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueESMO OpenSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207