Assessment of Onco+, a personalized navigation support, for oncology clinical trials in Quebec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e23114 Background: Quebec-Clinical Research Organization in Cancer (Q-CROC), a not-for-profit organization, has the mission to improve accessibility to oncology clinical trials in Quebec. Onco+, Q-CROC’s navigation support in collaboration with Quebec Cancer Foundation (QCF), addresses the growing need for a personalized patient support in accessing clinical trials. Onco+ is a free service available on OncoQuébec, Q-CROC’s web-application for oncology clinical trial search. Here, we describe the use of Onco+ since its launch in 2022. Methods: The assessment period spanned from May 2022 to December 2024. When users submitted a request for a trial search, they first provided consent to share their personal information, then completed a form with 29 questions to help refine the search. User support at QCF was provided by an experienced nurse trained in oncology trials by Q-CROC with complementary services like accommodation and psychological support offered as needed. The requests made from healthcare professionals (HCP) were treated by Q-CROC. The search for trials was done using OncoQuébec. All requests were addressed within 2-3 business days. A survey was sent 4-6 weeks after receiving the service from QCF. Results: A total of 269 requests were treated during the assessment period (90% from patients/caregivers; 10% from HCP). Most requests (n = 171; 64%) were matched with study proposals. Reasons for no match were: no clinical trial identified (n = 28; 10%) and other factors (e.g. incomplete information, medical unfitness, pending tests, etc.; n = 70; 26%). A total of 586 studies were proposed, with some suggested multiple times. Most studies were industry sponsored (n = 470; 80%). The survey results revealed that 84% of users were satisfied with the service, 88% found it very useful and 90% would recommend it (n = 48). Additionally, 28% had contacted a research team and 5% were involved in a clinical trial (n = 40). Onco+ referencing included OncoQuébec/Q-CROC, QCF, the treating physician, and patient associations. The table below summarizes patient data from the matched requests. Conclusions: During the assessment period, Onco+ was accessed by an average of 9 users per month, mostly through organic search. Almost 2/3 of requests were matched. Most requests were for advanced cancers, with over half from outside Quebec's major centers.The success of this service highlights the need to help patients access clinical trials. We plan to make this service widely available to all Canadians. Age (years; n=130) 19-40 : 18 (14%)41-60 : 56 (43%)61+ : 56 (43%) Gender (n=170) Male: 74 (44%)Female: 96 (56%) Predominant cancer type ≥10% of requests (n=170) Breast: 37 (22%)Colorectal: 23 (14%)Lung: 18 (11%)Pancreatic: 17 (10%) Stage of cancer (n=151) Stage 1: 9 (6%)Stage 2: 17 (11%)Stage 3: 18 (12%)Stage 4: 107 (71%) Region (n=160) Greater Montreal: 48 (30%)Québec city: 26 (16%)Other regions: 86 (54%)
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 | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".