MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4376872091 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285420

A longitudinal multidimensional rehabilitation program for patients undergoing allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (CaRE-4-alloBMT): Protocol for a phase II feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4376872091 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Tam, Rajat Kumar, Paty Lopez, Jonas Mattsson, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Lori J. Bernstein, Eugene Chang, Susan E. Clarke, David M. Langelier, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Samantha Mayo, Tina Papadakos, Jennifer M. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyRehabilitationClinical trialAdverse effectIntervention (counseling)TransplantationSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (alloBMT) is a curative treatment for blood cancers associated with various treatment-related adverse events and morbidities. Current rehabilitation programs are limited for patients undergoing alloBMT and research is urgently needed to test the acceptability and effectiveness of these programs. In response, we developed a 6-month multidimensional longitudinal rehabilitation program that spans from pre transplant to 3 months post transplant discharge (CaRE-4-alloBMT). METHODS: This study is a phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in patients undergoing alloBMT. A total of 80 patients stratified by frailty score will be randomized to receive usual care (n = 40) or CaRE-4-alloBMT plus usual care (n = 40). The CaRE-4-alloBMT program includes individualized exercise prescriptions, access to online education through a dedicated self-management platform, wearable technology for remote monitoring, and remote tailored clinical support. Feasibility will be assessed by examining the recruitment and retention rates and adherence to the intervention. Safety events will be monitored. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed through qualitative interviews. Secondary clinical outcomes will be collected through questionnaires and physiological assessments at baseline (T0, 2-6 weeks pre-transplant), transplant hospital admission (T1), hospital discharge (T2), and 3 months post-discharge (T3). CONCLUSION: This pilot RCT study will determine the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study design and will inform full-scale RCT planning.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.009

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→