MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403757885 · doi:10.2196/preprints.53443

Development of an Educational Website for Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Autoimmune Diseases Considering Immune Checkpoint Blockers: Usability and Acceptability Study (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4403757885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María A. López-Olivo, María E. Suarez‐Almazor, Gabrielle F. Duhon, McKenna Erck, Huifang Lu, Cassandra Calabrese, Mehmet Altan, Hussein A. Tawbi, Alexa Meara, Clifton O. Bingham, Adi Diab, Viola B. Leal, Robert J. Volk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintUsabilityCancerImmune checkpointMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceInternal medicineImmunotherapyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Patients with cancer and an underlying autoimmune disease who are considering immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) need to know about the benefits and risks of severe immune-related adverse events and flares of the autoimmune condition. OBJECTIVE This study aims to develop and alpha test an educational website for patients with cancer. METHODS Learning topics, images, and website architecture (including flow and requirements) were developed and iteratively reviewed by members of a community scientist program, a patient advisory group, and content experts. Alpha testing was performed, measuring the site’s usability using the Suitability Assessment of Materials and its acceptability using the Ottawa Acceptability Measure. RESULTS The website included a home page; general information about ICBs; comprehensive modules on the benefits and risks of ICBs for patients with cancer and preexisting autoimmune diseases; general wellness information; and features such as a quiz, additional resources, and a glossary. For the alpha testing, 9 users assessed the newly developed website. Patient reviewers (n=5) had rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn disease, Sjogren syndrome, or vasculitis. Health care provider reviewers (n=4) were medical oncologists or rheumatologists. The median Suitability Assessment of Materials rating was 75 (IQR 70-79; range 0-100) for patients versus 66 (IQR 57-72; range 0-100) for providers (scores ≥70 indicate no substantial changes needed). Recommendations for improvement, mostly involving navigation and accessibility, were addressed. All participants expressed that the website was acceptable and balanced in terms of discussion of benefits and harms. Because half (2/4, 50%) of the providers suggested we increase the amount of information, we extended the content on the impact of having an autoimmune disease when considering ICB treatment, the probability of flares, and the management of flares in this context. CONCLUSIONS The feedback led to minor revisions to enhance readability, navigation, and accessibility, ensuring the website’s suitability as a decision-making aid. The newly developed website could become a supporting tool to facilitate patient-physician discussion regarding ICBs. CLINICALTRIAL

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→