MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378176652 · doi:10.2196/46794

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Assessing Clinical Safety Outcomes of Prostate Cancer in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

2023· article· en· W4378176652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huichuan Tian, Yao Zhang, Jiajun Ren, Chaoran Wang, Ruiyu Mou, Xiaojiang Li, Yingjie Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTianjin Municipal Education CommissionNatural Science Foundation of Tianjin CityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDelphi methodPsychological interventionClinical trialFamily medicineProtocol (science)Alternative medicineMEDLINECancerMedical physicsNursingInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Among the common malignant tumors in men worldwide, the incidence of prostate cancer ranks second to lung cancer. This disease will bring an economic burden to patients and their families and can reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have conducted numerous clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of different interventions in the treatment of prostate cancer with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with standard treatment regimens. However, the currently published clinical trials exhibit inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to emphasize the need for a core outcome set (COS) to facilitate future prostate cancer research, aiming to improve the quality of trials and generate high-quality evidence. METHODS: This mixed methods project has three phases, as follows: (1) a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of interventions involving TCM for the treatment of prostate cancer as well as a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of patients with prostate cancer, their families, and their caregivers who have a history of TCM treatment; (2) a Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes-Participants will include traditional Chinese and Western medicine clinicians in prostate cancer-related directions, nurses, and methodology experts who will participate in 2 rounds of the Delphi method expert consultation to score each outcome in the list of outcome indicators; and (3) a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final COS for the application of TCM in the treatment of prostate cancer. RESULTS: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022356184) before the start of the review process, and we will initiate the review on August 1, 2023; results should be expected by September 1, 2023. The Delphi survey among stakeholders is expected to start in October 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a core outcome set for assessing clinical safety outcomes of prostate cancer in clinical trials of TCM will provide a significant first step to assist Chinese doctors, researchers, and policy makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022356184; https://tinyurl.com/ysakz74r. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46794.

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)0.196
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1960.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.008

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 head0.951
GPT teacher head0.845
Teacher spread0.106 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207