Development of a decision support tool for patients with Crohn's disease considering biologic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to develop a decision support tool for patients with Crohn's disease considering biologic treatment and evaluate its usability, validity, and acceptability. A prototype was systematically developed based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. The prototype met all the qualifying criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument. A questionnaire survey was designed to assess the prototype, with 22 patients and six clinicians recruited. We calculated the descriptive statistics for the survey data and analyzed the free responses using a qualitative content analysis and the prototype features requiring refinement extraction. The survey was completed by 18 patients and six clinicians. The prototype was assessed as "very useful" by 66.7% of the patients and clinicians and "quite useful" by 33.3%. The information that patients must know was considered to be "well represented" by the prototype, as expressed by 72.2% of the patients and 66.7% of the clinicians, and as "somewhat represented," as expressed by 27.8 and 33.3%, respectively. Most respondents reported that the content was "easy to understand" (patients: 83.3%; clinicians: 100%); the format was "easy to use" (patients: 77.8%; clinicians: 100%); and the information presentation was "well-balanced" (patients: 83.3%; clinicians: 100%). The patients suggested improvements, such as using figures to make the text concise and revising the checklist format and content to facilitate decision making. We created an evidence-based decision support tool after modifying the prototype according to the survey results. Further investigation of the tool effectiveness for Crohn's disease patients considering biologic treatment is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".