MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PB2707: ESMO-MAGNITUDE OF CLINICAL BENEFIT SCALE FOR HAEMATOLOGICAL MALIGNANCIES (ESMO-MCBS:H) VERSION 1.0

2023· article· en· W4385697662 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Kiesewetter, Urania Dafni, Elisabeth G.E. de Vries, Jorge Barriuso, Giuseppe Curigliano, Verónica González‐Calle, M. Galotti, Bishal Gyawali, Brian J.P. Huntly, Ulrich Jaeger, N.J. Latino, Luca Malcovati, Sjoukje F. Oosting, Gert J. Ossenkoppele, Martine Piccart, Markus Raderer, Lydia Scarfò, Dario Trapani, Christoph Zielinski, Ruth Wester, Panagiota Zygoura, Elizabeth Macintyre, Nathan I. Cherny

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialMedical physicsInternal medicineOncologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topic: 36. Ethics and health economics Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapeutic strategies for haematological malignancies, there is a need to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specific for haematological malignancies. Aims: The European Hematology Association (EHA) and ESMO initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). Methods: The process incorporated five landmarks: field-testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. Results: Based on the field-testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved version of the ESMO-MCBS:H. Summary/Conclusion: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H, allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies. Keywords: Myeloma, MDS, Lymphoma, Leukemia

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.045

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueHemaSphereSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207