MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389745620 · doi:10.1200/go.23.00201

Cancer Research in Vulnerable Populations: A Call for Collaboration and Sustainability From MENAT Countries

2023· article· en· W4389745620 on OpenAlexaff
Marwan Tolba, Mac Skelton, Zahi Abdul Sater, Ibtihal Fadhil, Ali Al‐Zahrani, M. Tezer Kutluk, Kamal Akbarov, Alì Taher, Richard Sullivan, Layth Mula‐Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Global Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)CancerMedicineSustainabilitySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cancer is a major burden across Middle East, North Africa, Türkiye (MENAT). Many MENAT countries experience multiple conflicts that compound vulnerabilities, but little research investigates the linkages between vulnerability and cancer research. This study examines the current level and the potential for cancer research among vulnerable populations in the MENAT region, aiming to provide direction toward developing a research agenda on the region's vulnerable populations. METHODS: Expert-driven meetings were arranged among the 10 authors. After obtaining institutional review board approval, a self-administered online survey questionnaire was circulated to more than 500 cancer practitioners working in 22 MENAT countries. RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen cancer practitioners across the MENAT region responded. Fifty percent of the respondents identified clinical research in vulnerable patients with cancer as a significant issue; 21.8% reported previous research experience that included vulnerable populations, and 60% reported encountering vulnerable populations in their daily clinical practice. The main barriers to conducting research were lack of funding (60%), protected time (42%), and research training (35%). More than half of the respondents believed that wars/conflicts constituted an important source of vulnerability. The most vulnerable cancer populations were the elderly, palliative/terminally ill, those with concomitant mental health-related issues, those with other chronic illnesses, and socioeconomically deprived patients. CONCLUSION: Results support that a major effort is needed to improve cancer research among vulnerable cancer populations in the MENAT region. We call for interdisciplinary research that accounts for the region's unique, compounding, and cumulative forms of vulnerability. This cancer research agenda on different vulnerable populations must balance sociobehavioral studies that explore sociopolitical barriers to quality care and clinical studies that gauge and refine treatment protocols. Building a research agenda through collaboration and solidarity with international partners is prime time.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.530
GPT teacher head0.694
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

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 topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207