MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406856422 · doi:10.2196/64611

Leveraging Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Optimal Dose Selection in Early Phase Cancer Trials

2025· review· en· W4406856422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bill Byrom, Anthony Everhart, Paúl Cordero, Chris Garratt, Tim Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintSelection (genetic algorithm)Outcome (game theory)Phase (matter)CancerComputer scienceMedicineMedical physicsOncologyArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineMathematicsWorld Wide WebPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlabelled: While patient-reported outcome measures are regularly incorporated into phase 3 clinical trials, they have been infrequently used in early phase trials. However, the patient's perspective is vital to fully understanding dose toxicity and selecting an optimal dose. This viewpoint paper reviews the rationale for and practical approach to collecting patient-reported outcome data in early phase oncology drug development and the rationale for electronic collection.

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)0.184
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1840.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.825
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207