Implications of Agile Values in Software Engineering for Agility in Breast Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment has been described as a dynamic and patient-centered approach that emphasizes adaptability and flexibility throughout the treatment process. Breast cancer is complex, with varying subtypes and stages, making it important to tailor treatment plans to each patient's unique circumstances. Breast cancer treatment delivery relies on a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals who collaborate to provide personalized care and quick adaptation to changing conditions to optimize outcomes while minimizing side effects and maintaining the patient's quality of life. However, agility in breast cancer treatment has not been defined according to common agile values and described in language comprehensible to breast cancer professionals. In the rapidly evolving landscape of breast cancer treatment, the incorporation of agile values from software engineering promises to enhance patient care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to propose agile values for breast cancer treatment adopted and adapted from software engineering. We also aim to validate how these values conform to the concept of agility in the breast cancer context through referencing past work. METHODS: We applied a structured research methodology to identify and validate 4 agile values for breast cancer treatment. In the elicitation phase, through 2 interviews, we identified 4 agile values and described them in language that resonates with breast cancer treatment professionals. The values were then validated by a domain expert and discussed in the context of supporting work from the literature. Final validation entailed a domain expert conducting a walkthrough of the 4 identified agile values to adjust them as per the reported literature. RESULTS: Four agile values were identified for breast cancer treatment, and among them, we validated 3 that conformed to the concept of agility. The fourth value, documentation and the quality of documentation, is vital for breast cancer treatment planning and management. This does not conform to agility. However, its nonagility is vital for the agility of the other values. None of the identified agile values were validated as partially conforming to the concept of agility. CONCLUSIONS: This work makes a novel contribution to knowledge in identifying the first set of agile values in breast cancer treatment through multidisciplinary research. Three of these values were evaluated as conforming to the concept of agility, and although 1 value did not meet the concept of agility, it enhanced the agility of the other values. It is anticipated that these 4 agile values can drive oncology practice, strategies, policies, protocols, and procedures to enhance delivery of care. Moreover, the identified values contribute to identifying quality assurance and control practices to assess the concept of agility in oncology practice and breast cancer treatment and adjust corresponding actions. We conclude that breast cancer treatment agile values are not limited to 4. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/53124.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".