MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quality of Life and Wellbeing Following Treatment for AML, and the Co-design of Community-based Care Plans

2017· other· en· W6964531701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingInterimCLARITYQuality of life (healthcare)Relevance (law)AuditNoticeNicePalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionAcute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) is a form of blood cancer. Treatment for AML requires intensive chemotherapy and can have lasting impacts on the lives of patients due to potential late adverse effects. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life (QoL) and wellbeing, may be improved with patient-centered community-based care plans.The study purpose is to:1)tGain insight on aspects of QoL and wellbeing that matter to patients 2)tPartner with patients to design collaborative care plans for community-based settings MethodsA pilot study was recently launched (May, 2019) at the Vancouver General Hospital with a goal to recruit 50 people with AML. Eligible patients are visited in hospital 7-10 days following initiation of treatment, and again 60 days later. At each time point, a survey comprising demographic questions and standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, ICECAP-A, and EQ-5D-5L) is administered, followed by a debriefing interview. The debriefing interview allows us to engage patients by asking them their opinion on the clarity and relevance of the questionnaires, what aspects of QoL and wellbeing matter most to them, and whether they would be interested in being part of the research team in the future. Results An interim analysis on the results from the debriefing interviews will be presented, which will include patient feedback on the questionnaires and their interest in joining the research team. 90% of the patients we invite have joined the study and early results suggesting that most people are interested in becoming more involved as research partners. Discussion/Implications The results from the debriefing interviews will be used to inform the design of the future scale-up version of the study. Dissemination plan/KT approachThe knowledge gained from this study will be shared with physicians through publications in scientific journals and at conferences. Acknowledgements (of funders, supporters)This study is being conducted by BC Cancer and the Leukemia/Bone Marrow Transplant Program of BC, and is sponsored by the VGH and UBC Hospital Foundation and the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC). ARCC is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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)Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207