MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canadian/Us integrative Oncology Study (Cusios) : Protocol and Study Status

2017· other· en· W6945516053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyStage (stratigraphy)Breast cancerPancreatic cancerOvarian cancerColorectal cancerNaturopathyQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D. Seely (1,2), L. Standish (3), L. Dale (3), E. McDonell (2), D. Abdelfattah (2), E. Sweet (3), P. Chiang (3), K. Ronnie (3), F. Dowd (3), R. McLaughlin (3) (1) Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; (2) Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; (3) Bastyr University, Kenmore, Washington, United States of America Background: The Canadian/US Integrative Oncology Study (CUSIOS) is a prospective, observational study of advanced stage cancer patients receiving Advanced Integrative Oncology (AIO) care by experienced naturopathic doctors. Objectives: (1) Measure survival of advanced stage breast, colorectal, ovarian and pancreatic cancer patients receiving AIO treatments; (2) Describe AIO treatments recommended by naturopathic oncologists; (3) Pilot the collection of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) data; (4) Evaluate the cost of AIO care; (5) Qualitatively describe the experience of AIO care.Methods: CUSIOS is an uncontrolled, prospective observational study in 11 North American clinics. The sample size is 400 patients, which includes 80 patients each in HR-QOL and cost-analysis sub-studies. Eligibility criteria include adults with confirmed stage 4 breast or colorectal cancer, or stage 3 or 4 ovarian or pancreatic cancer receiving care from a participating AIO clinic, who consent. Data regarding conventional treatments, AIO treatments, diagnosis and survival are collected and will be compared to the medical literature, and Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Data from validated questionnaires and qualitative interviews are collected to evaluate HR-QOL, cost utilization and patient experience.Results: Study recruitment began January 2015 with 6 sites. Enrollment as of June 2018 is 278, with an expansion to 11 sites. Enrollment for HR-QOL is complete, and screening for cost analysis began May, 2018. Expected completion including follow up is July 2022. Conclusions: This is the first multi-centre, prospective observational study evaluating survival outcomes for patients receiving AIO care in North America. Findings from the study will inform the profession and public of the potential impact that AIO has on survival and quality of life. In addition, this research will provide a thorough description of the range of therapies recommended by experienced naturopathic oncologists, cost utilization by patients, and a longitudinal analysis of patient experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0510.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0140.018
Open science0.0150.022
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.011

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.334 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207