Was It Worth It? Response Data from >650 US and International Participants in Chemoprevention Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to assess whether subject's participation in early-phase chemoprevention trials was satisfactory and identify features associated with subjects' satisfaction. Thirteen trials that investigated a range of candidate agents from 2006 to 2021 by the Cancer Prevention Network were included. The five-item "Was It Worth It?" (WIWI) questionnaire was administered to all subjects at the end of each trial's intervention or at early termination. Satisfied overall was defined as a participant response of "yes" to the first three questions. Six hundred ninety-one participants from the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and Honduras enrolled on a trial. Six hundred fifty-two (94.4%) completed the WIWI questionnaire. Of these, 493 (75.6%) were White, non-Hispanic/Latino; 39 (6.0%) Black, non-Hispanic/Latino; 98 (15.0%) Hispanic/Latino; and 8 (1.2%) of another race/ethnicity. One hundred ninety-three were women (29.6%), 121 (17.5%) were ≥65 years, and 517 (79.3%) participated in a placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-five percent indicated being satisfied overall. Compared with White, non-Hispanic/Latino, the odds of not satisfied overall were 2.96 times higher for Black/Asian/>1 race, non-Hispanic/Latino (P < 0.001) and 0.40 times lower for Hispanic/Latino (P = 0.004). The odds of not satisfied overall was 1.9 times higher when the number of preintervention adverse events experienced was ≥1 (P = 0.012), 1.8 times higher when the percentage of the intervention duration with adverse events was >5% (P = 0.024), and 7.4 times higher for subjects who terminated the intervention early (P < 0.001). These findings can inform the design of future chemoprevention trials and help investigators improve accrual, retention, adherence, and diversity in this underexplored research setting. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The five-item "WIWI?" questionnaire, which captures the participant-reported experience of trial participation, gives the subject a voice in the development of new chemopreventative agents. This study in 652 subjects looked at satisfaction with participation in early-phase chemoprevention trials for higher-risk, cancer-free men and women. See related Spotlight, p. 7.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".