MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409020875 · doi:10.2196/62749

Development of a Comprehensive Decision Support Tool for Chemotherapy-Cycle Prescribing: Initial Usability Study

2025· article· en· W4409020875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanna Iivanainen, Reetta Arokoski, Santeri Mentu, Laura Lang, Jussi Ekström, Vesa Kataja, Jussi Koivunen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUsabilityMedical prescriptionOxaliplatinChemotherapyWorkflowClinical trialOncologyInternal medicineCancerPhysical therapyMedical physicsColorectal cancerNursingDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chemotherapy cycle prescription is generally carried out through a multistep manual process that is prone to human error. Clinical decision support tools can provide patient-specific assessments that support clinical decisions, improve prescribing practices, and reduce medication errors. Objective: We hypothesized that a knowledge-based, patient-derived, evidence-directed decision support tool consisting of multiple modules focusing on the core duties preceding chemotherapy-cycle prescription could result in a more cost-effective and error-free approach and streamline the workflow. Methods: A 1-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical trial ("Follow-up of Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy or Targeted Therapy by Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes-tool" [ECHO] 7/2019-1/2021; NCT04081558) was initiated to investigate the tool. The most important inclusion criteria were the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, age ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance score of 0 to 2, and internet access. A decision support tool that included digital symptom monitoring, a laboratory value interface, and treatment schedule integration for semiautomated chemotherapy cycle prescribing was integrated into the care pathway. Performance was assessed by the percentage of chemotherapy cycles with sent and completed symptom questionnaires, while perceptions of health care professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of the approach were collected through a 1-time semistructured interview. Results: The ECHO trial included 43 patients with CRC treated with doublet or triplet chemotherapy in an adjuvant or metastatic setting. Altogether, 843 electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom questionnaires were completed. Of the 15 recorded symptoms, fatigue (n=446, 52.9%) and peripheral neuropathy (n=429, 50.9%) were reported most often, while 137 grade 3 to 4 symptoms were recorded, of which diarrhea (n=5, 4%) and peripheral neuropathy (n=4, 3%) were the most common. During the study, 339 chemotherapy cycles were prescribed, and for the 77% (n=262) of new chemotherapy cycles, ePRO questionnaire data were available within preset limits (completed within 3 days prior to chemotherapy scheduling) while 65% of the cycles (n=221) had symptom questionnaire grading at ≤1%, and 67% of the cycles (n=228) had laboratory values in a preset range. The recommendations by the tool for a new chemotherapy cycle were tier 1 (green; meaning "go") in 145 (42.8%) of the cycles, tier 2 (yellow; "evaluate") in 83 (25%), and tier 3 (red; "hold") in 111 (32.7%). HCPs (n=3) were interviewed with a questionnaire (comprising 8 questions), revealing that they most valued the improved workflow, faster patient evaluation, and direct messaging option. Conclusions: In this study, we investigated the feasibility of a decision support system for chemotherapy-cycle pre-evaluation and prescription that was developed for the prospective ECHO trial. The study showed that the functionalities of the investigated tool were feasible and that an automated approach to chemotherapy-cycle prescription was possible for nearly half of the cycles.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→