Extending cBioPortal for Therapy Recommendation Documentation in Molecular Tumor Boards: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In molecular tumor boards (MTBs), patients with rare or advanced cancers are discussed by a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals. Software support for MTBs is lacking; in particular, tools for preparing and documenting MTB therapy recommendations need to be developed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to implement an extension to cBioPortal to provide a tool for the documentation of therapy recommendations from MTB sessions in a secure and standardized manner. The developed extension should be embedded in the patient view of cBioPortal to enable easy documentation during MTB sessions. The resulting architecture for storing therapy recommendations should be integrable into various hospital information systems. METHODS: On the basis of a requirements analysis and technology analysis for authentication techniques, a prototype was developed and iteratively refined through a user-centered development process. In conclusion, the tool was evaluated via a usability evaluation, including interviews, structured questionnaires, and the System Usability Scale. RESULTS: The patient view of cBioPortal was extended with a new tab that enables users to document MTB sessions and therapy recommendations. The role-based access control was expanded to allow for a finer distinction among the rights to view, edit, and delete data. The usability evaluation showed overall good usability and a System Usability Scale score of 83.57. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how cBioPortal can be extended to not only visualize MTB patient data but also be used as a documentation platform for therapy recommendations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".