MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404469372 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.18.24317089

What are the ethnic inequities in care outcomes related to haematological malignancies, treated with transplant/cellular-therapies, in the UK?

2024· preprint· en· W4404469372 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Cusworth, Zareen Deplano, Alastair K. Denniston, David Burns, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Nicola J. Adderley, Joht Singh Chandan

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsEthnic groupMedicineIntensive care medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Haematological cancers are common in the UK, with a variety of morphologies. Stem cell transplants and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies provide significant options for hard to treat haematological cancers, although with difficult to predict outcomes. Research into the determinates of treatment efficacy, and access to treatments, is key to ensuring equal benefit across patients, and patient safety. With this, there are concerns about the small representation of minority groups in related research. We aim to report on the current knowledge, to guide future research. Methods and analysis A variety of databases will be searched, for literature on UK minority ethnic populations receiving haematopoietic stem cell transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Many outcomes will be analysed, covering the patient care pathway for those of the target population, although with a focus on follow-up after therapy. Plans have been made to conduct narrative synthesis, with meta-analysis where applicable. Ethics and Dissemination Outputs will be published in an appropriate journal, and discussed with the wider NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics (BTRU) group. Discussions will also be undertaken with the BTRU patient partners group. Strengths and Limitations of this Study This systematic review has a detailed search criteria with a variety of search tools, enabling high sensitivity in obtaining evidence. To enable this work to be completed, reviewers will be working independently on separate reference lists, during screening, rather than voting on the same references and resolving conflicts. To alleviate issues, reviewers will be first required to screen a defined number of papers together, using a more classical approach to confirm agreement, before working independently. Due to difficulties in pooling together international ethnic groups, only studies in the UK have been included, to reduce complexity. There are some ethnic groups which are more valid to pool together internationally than others, mainly in respect to genetic factors (as opposed to social), which this protocol does not consider.

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)0.082
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207