MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385727502 · doi:10.1200/go.23.00111

Redefining Cancer Research Priorities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Post–COVID-19 Global Context: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process

2023· article· en· W4385727502 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Fox, Aida Santaolalla, Jasmine Handford, Richard Sullivan, Julie Torode, Verna Vanderpuye, C.S. Pramesh, Layth Mula‐Hussain, Shaymaa AlWaheidi, Lydia Makaroff, Ranjit Kaur, Clara Mackay, Deborah Mukherji, Mieke Van Hemelrijck

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Global Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsOvarian Cancer Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PreparednessDelphi methodPandemicHealth careDelphiGlobal healthMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceNursingGeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growthPublic healthDiseaseEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE The post–COVID-19 funding landscape for cancer research globally has become increasingly challenging, particularly in resource-challenged regions (RCRs) lacking strong research ecosystems. We aimed to produce a list of priority areas for cancer research in countries with limited resources, informed by researchers and patients. METHODS Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores ( T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives. RESULTS The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) ( T = 83). Others included cancer registries ( T = 62); prevention ( T = 52); end-of-life care ( T = 53); and value-based and affordable care ( T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly ( T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption ( T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality ( T = 19); and pandemic preparedness ( T = 18). CONCLUSION Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Global OncologySame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207