MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase 2 study of a longitudinal multidimensional rehabilitation program for allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation patients

2024· article· en· W4400493461 on OpenAlexafffund
Shabbir MH Alibhai, Dima El Hassanieh, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattsson, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Lisa Avery, Lori J. Bernstein, Eugene Chang, David M. Langelier, Paty Lopez, Jennifer M. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationBone marrow transplantationTransplantationBone transplantationLongitudinal studyOncologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (alloBMT) is a curative treatment for blood cancers associated with various treatment-related adverse events and morbidities for which rehabilitation programs are currently limited. A phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of CaRE-4-alloBMT, a longitudinal, multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program for patients undergoing alloBMT. The primary outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the methods. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative interviews. Secondary clinical outcomes were collected through questionnaires and physiological assessments at 4 time points. A total of 80 participants were recruited and randomized. Recruitment (72%) and retention (70%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the intervention. Adherence was suboptimal, most notably educational module completion (22.7%). Treatment effect sizes of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-1.21; 30-second sit-to-stand test) and 0.46 (95% CI, -0.17 to 1.09; 36-Item Short Form Survey) were observed in favor of the intervention. The results appear promising; however, the findings are limited by missing data owing to attrition. Modifications will be required to refine the program and inform a phase 3 RCT. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT04966156.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207