MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417002262 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4434

Animated Patient's guide to Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Assessing patient understanding, shared decision-making, and health outcomes.

2025· article· en· W4417002262 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Kurtin, Jamile M. Shammo, David P. Steensma, Peggy Ann Torney, Ashley Moncrief, Janice Butchko, Stephanie Searle

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMarch of Dimes Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyPatient educationHealth communicationLiteracyComprehensionHealth carePatient portalHealth educationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patient education resources that address barriers to health literacy, elucidate the many complexities of AML, and demonstrate improved patient outcomes are limited. Poor health literacy is well-recognized as a major impediment in patient understanding of disease, and is an obstacle to patient self-management, shared decision-making, and achievement of optimal health outcomes. The challenges to overcoming barriers of limited health literacy are immense – the AMA cites a mere 12% of Americans are considered health literacy proficient; yet most learning resources for patients utilize a text-based information format, often beyond the comprehension of most patients. To mitigate the barriers of poor understanding and inadequate health literacy, the MDS Foundation developed a highly visual format of learning for patients, using animations, and image-rich educational communication tools. We provide a synopsis of the impact, utility, and benefits of “An Animated Patient's Guide to AML for Best Health Outcomes (APG-AML)” accessible at . Our study's retrospective evaluation demonstrates the value of this format of learning, by assessing knowledge gains, improved self-management skills, as well as enabling discussions between patients and providers to validate the merits and outcomes benefits of the APG-AML website and YouTube resources. Methods: Our APG-AML study reports on data collected from November 2019 to June 2025 (~67 months). We monitored audience outreach, demographics, learner identity (patient/family member/caregiver), knowledge improvement, learner-reported commitment to change, and patients who planned to implement self-management actions into their AML management. Our data comprised information collected on unique visitors, country origins, areas of interest; we measured responses by learners who self-reported intention to discuss new management options with their providers. We also monitored usage of learning resources, such as top views by multimedia type (animations, slide shows, expert videos, patient videos, infographics). We assessed learner impact and commitment to change through surveys, which assessed areas of interest, intention to self-modify behaviors, and intention to discuss disease management opportunities with providers. We followed an adapted approach of Moore's outcomes performance criteria utilized in continuing medical education among the user audiences to assess effectiveness, and learner responses. Results: Our data reports on learner activities based on 565,131 total views globally. There were 319,173 global unique visitors; of which 159,587 (~50%) were unique visitors from the USA. Of US visitors, 47% (n=75,006) identified as AML patients; 24% (n=38,301) identified as family or caregivers; 13% (n=20,746) identified as ‘other’; and 16% (n=25,534) identified as healthcare providers. Of patients who reported actions related to commitment to change, 93% (n=670) reported they “will use information learned to better self-manage their AML”; 94% (n=597) reported they “plan to discuss information learned with their doctor”; 98% (n=737) reported they “plan to discuss AML medication and treatment options with their doctor”. In terms of knowledge improvement among213 respondents, 93% (n=198)indicated “improved understanding of AML”; 91% reported “better understanding of AML diagnosis”; and 94% (n=200)reported they “learned new treatment option information for AML”.Conclusion: Our AML patient education study provides insights into the learning needs, areas of importance and self-reported knowledge gains among learners and suggests that such learning resources can inform patients effectively and facilitate actionable behaviors leading to improved outcomes. Moreover, visual formats of learning can help overcome health literacy barriers and enable greater patient participation in achieving shared-decisions and optimal outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.405 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→