Patient Decision Aid for Chemotherapy or Exclusion in Cisplatin-Intolerant Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Development, Alpha Testing, and Peer Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), adding cisplatin to radiotherapy (RT) improves survival but increases toxicity. Among patients with cisplatin contraindications, RT compliance may be compromised by toxicity because of cisplatin or a substitute. In shared decision making, a patient decision aid (PtDA) may decrease decisional conflict and attitudinal barriers, thereby improving treatment compliance. METHODS: Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) guidelines, a steering committee of two radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, an oncology nurse, a clinical psychologist, a cancer survivor, and a caregiver developed the chemotherapy or exclusion in cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC (CECIL) prototype, a PtDA for cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC deciding about adding chemotherapy to RT. The prototype was alpha-tested using the e-Delphi method. The patient decision aid research group Ottawa Acceptability Questionnaire was used to evaluate comprehensibility, length, amount of information, neutrality, and overall suitability for decision making. The prototype was then independently evaluated by local internal, local external, and international reviewers using the IPDAS checklist version 4, which encompasses information, probabilities, values, guidance, development, evidence, disclosure, plain language, and evaluation. RESULTS: Alpha testing showed high practitioner acceptability (all items with mean and median scores ≥4; overall mean score 4.70 of 5.00) and good patient acceptability (all items rated good to excellent). Content validation showed that the PtDA satisfied all IPDAS six qualifying and six certification criteria, with high overall mean score (3.63 of 4.00) for all 17 applicable quality criteria. CONCLUSION: The CECIL prototype shows good practitioner and patient acceptability, and content validity on peer review. Clinical testing to determine its effectiveness in reducing decisional conflict is ongoing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".