Leveraging Artificial Intelligence for Digital Symptom Management in Oncology: The Development of CRCWeb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED: Digital health interventions offer promise for scalable and accessible healthcare, but access is still limited by some participatory challenges, especially for disadvantaged families facing limited health literacy, language barriers, low income, or living in marginalized areas. These issues are particularly pronounced for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, who often experience distressing symptoms and struggle with educational materials due to complex jargon, fatigue, or reading level mismatches. To address these issues, we developed and assessed the feasibility of a digital health platform, CRCWeb, to improve the accessibility of educational resources on symptom management for disadvantaged CRC patients and their caregivers facing limited health literacy or low income. CRCWeb was developed through a stakeholder-centered participatory design approach. Two-phase semi-structured interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology experts informed the iterative design process. From the interviews, we developed the following five key design principles: user-friendly navigation, multimedia integration, concise and clear content, enhanced accessibility for individuals with vision and reading disabilities, and scalability for future content expansion. Initial feedback from iterative stakeholder engagements confirmed high user satisfaction, with participants rating CRCWeb an average of 3.98 out of 5 on the post-intervention survey. Additionally, using GenAI tools, including large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and multimedia generation tools such as Pictory, complex healthcare guidelines were transformed into concise, easily comprehensible multimedia content, and made accessible through CRCWeb. User engagement was notably higher among disadvantaged participants with limited health literacy or low income, who logged into the platform 2.52 times more frequently than non-disadvantaged participants. The structured development approach of CRCWeb demonstrates that GenAI-powered multimedia interventions can effectively address healthcare accessibility barriers faced by disadvantaged CRC patients and caregivers with limited health literacy or low income. This structured approach highlights how digital innovations can enhance healthcare. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: RR2-10.2196/48499.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".