Answering the Big Clinical Questions in Brain Metastasis Management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kirkpatrick JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8805701 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Answering the Big Clinical Questions in Brain Metastasis Management.
Frontiers in oncology 20220118
Management of brain metastases is challenging, both because of the historically guarded prognosis and evolving, more efficacious treatment paradigms for metastatic cancer. This perspective addresses several of the important difficult questions that practitioners treating patients with brain tumors face in the clinic. Successfully answering these questions requires knowledge of the clinical evidence, thoughtful discussion of the patient's goals of care and collaboration in a multi-disciplinary se ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the most frequent obstacles preventing physicians from answering their patient-care questions and the most requested improvements to clinical information resources.DesignQualitative analysis of questions asked by 48 randomly selected generalist physicians during ambulatory care.MeasurementsFrequency of reported obstacles to answering patient-care questions and recommendations from physicians for improving clinical information resources.ResultsThe physicians asked 1,062 questions but pursued answers to only 585 (55%). The most commonly reported obstacle to the pursuit of an answer was the physician's doubt that an answer existed (52 questions, 11%). Among pursued questions, the most common obstacle was the failure of the selected resource to provide an answer (153 questions, 26%). During audiotaped interviews, physicians made 80 recommendations for improving clinical information resources. For example, they requested comprehensive resources that answer questions likely to occur in practice with emphasis on treatment and bottom-line advice. They asked for help in locating information quickly by using lists, tables, bolded subheadings, and algorithms and by avoiding lengthy, uninterrupted prose.ConclusionPhysicians do not seek answers to many of their questions, often suspecting a lack of usable information. When they do seek answers, they often cannot find the information they need. Clinical resource developers could use the recommendations made by practicing physicians to provide resources that are more useful for answering clinical questions.
| S-EPMC551553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent decades, real-world evidence (RWE) in oncology has rapidly gained traction for its potential to answer clinical questions that cannot be directly addressed by randomized clinical trials. Integrating real-world data (RWD) into clinical research promises to contribute to more sustainable research designs, including extension, augmentation, enrichment, and pragmatic designs. Nevertheless, clinical research using RWD is still limited because of concerns regarding the shortage of best practices for extracting, harmonizing, and analyzing RWD. In particular, pragmatic screening methods to determine whether the content of a data source is sufficient to answer the research questions before conducting the research with RWD have not yet been established.ObjectiveWe examined the PAR (Preliminary Attainability Assessment of Real-World Data) framework and assessed its utility in breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM), which has an unmet medical need for data attainability screening at the preliminary step of observational studies that use RWD.MethodsThe PAR framework was proposed to assess data attainability from a particular data source during the early research process. The PAR framework has four sequential stages, starting with clinical question clarification: (1) operational definition of variables, (2) data matching (structural/semantic), (3) data screening and extraction, and (4) data attainability diagramming. We identified 5 clinical questions to be used for PAR framework evaluation through interviews and validated them with a survey of breast cancer experts. We used the Samsung Medical Center Breast Cancer Registry, a hospital-based real-time registry implemented in March 2021, leveraging the institution's anonymized and deidentified clinical data warehouse platform. The number of breast cancer patients in the registry was 45,129; it covered the period from June 1995 to December 2021. The registry consists of 24 base data marts that represent disease-specific breast cancer characteristics and care pathways. The outcomes included screening results of the clinical questions via the PAR framework and a procedural diagram of data attainability for each research question.ResultsData attainability was tested for study feasibility according to the PAR framework with 5 clinical questions for BCBM. We obtained data sets that were sufficient to conduct studies with 4 of 5 clinical questions. The research questions stratified into 3 types when we developed data fields for clearly defined research variables. In the first, only 1 question could be answered using direct data variables. In the second, the other 3 questions required surrogate definitions that combined data variables. In the third, the question turned out to be not feasible for conducting further analysis.ConclusionsThe adoption of the PAR framework was associated with more efficient preliminary clinical research using RWD from BCBM. Furthermore, this framework helped accelerate RWE generation through clinical research by enhancing transparency and reproducibility and lowering the entry barrier for clinical researchers.
| S-EPMC10131620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence suggests that research protocols often lack important information on study design, which hinders external review. The study protocol should provide an adequate explanation for why the proposed study methodology is appropriate for the question posed, why the study design is likely to answer the research question, and why it is the best approach. It is especially important that researchers explain why the treatment difference sought is worthwhile to patients, and they should reference consultations with the public and patient groups and existing literature. Moreover, the study design should be underpinned by a systematic review of the existing evidence, which should be included in the research protocol. The Health Research Authority in collaboration with partners has published guidance entitled 'Specific questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials'. The guidance will help those designing research and those reviewing it to address key issues.
| S-EPMC4223595 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11318168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) are a relatively new class of tobacco products and a subject of much debate for scientists and policymakers worldwide. Objective data that address the ECIG risk-benefit ratio for individual and public health are needed, and addressing this need requires a multidisciplinary approach that spans several areas of psychology as well as chemistry, toxicant inhalation, and physiology. This multidisciplinary approach would benefit from methods that are reliable, valid, and swift. For this reason, we formed a multidisciplinary team to develop methods that could answer questions about ECIGs and other potential modified risk tobacco products. Our team includes scientists with expertise in psychology (clinical, community, and experimental) and other disciplines, including aerosol research, analytical chemistry, biostatistics, engineering, internal medicine, and public health. The psychologists on our team keep other members focused on factors that influence individual behavior, and other team members keep the psychologists aware of other issues, such as product design. Critically, all team members are willing to extend their interests beyond the boundaries of their discipline to collaborate effectively with the shared goal of producing the rigorous science needed to inform empirically based tobacco policy. In addition, our trainees gain valuable knowledge from these collaborations and learn that other disciplines are accessible, exciting, and can enhance their own research. Multidisciplinary work presents challenges: learning other scientists' languages and staying focused on our core mission. Overall, our multidisciplinary team has led to several major findings that inform the scientific, regulatory, and public health communities about ECIGs and their effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC6450402 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4675427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Brain metastases are a primary contributor to mortality, as they often go undetected until late stages due to their dormant nature. Moreover, the clinical management of brain metastases is complicated by the relevant issue of blood-brain barrier penetration. The molecular pathways involved in the formation, progression, and colonization of primary breast tumors and subsequent brain metastases are diverse, posing significant hurdles due to the heterogeneous nature of breast cancer subtypes. Despite advancements in primary breast cancer treatments, the prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor. In this review, we aim to highlight the biological mechanisms of breast cancer brain metastases by evaluating multi-step genetic pathways and to discuss currently available and emerging treatment strategies to propose a prospective overview of the management of this complex disease.
| S-EPMC10298724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (Open AI), are increasingly used in medicine and supplement standard search engines as information sources. This leads to more "consultations" of LLMs about personal medical symptoms.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in answering clinical case-based questions in otorhinolaryngology (ORL) in comparison to ORL consultants' answers.MethodsWe used 41 case-based questions from established ORL study books and past German state examinations for doctors. The questions were answered by both ORL consultants and ChatGPT 3. ORL consultants rated all responses, except their own, on medical adequacy, conciseness, coherence, and comprehensibility using a 6-point Likert scale. They also identified (in a blinded setting) if the answer was created by an ORL consultant or ChatGPT. Additionally, the character count was compared. Due to the rapidly evolving pace of technology, a comparison between responses generated by ChatGPT 3 and ChatGPT 4 was included to give an insight into the evolving potential of LLMs.ResultsRatings in all categories were significantly higher for ORL consultants (P<.001). Although inferior to the scores of the ORL consultants, ChatGPT's scores were relatively higher in semantic categories (conciseness, coherence, and comprehensibility) compared to medical adequacy. ORL consultants identified ChatGPT as the source correctly in 98.4% (121/123) of cases. ChatGPT's answers had a significantly higher character count compared to ORL consultants (P<.001). Comparison between responses generated by ChatGPT 3 and ChatGPT 4 showed a slight improvement in medical accuracy as well as a better coherence of the answers provided. Contrarily, neither the conciseness (P=.06) nor the comprehensibility (P=.08) improved significantly despite the significant increase in the mean amount of characters by 52.5% (n= (1470-964)/964; P<.001).ConclusionsWhile ChatGPT provided longer answers to medical problems, medical adequacy and conciseness were significantly lower compared to ORL consultants' answers. LLMs have potential as augmentative tools for medical care, but their "consultation" for medical problems carries a high risk of misinformation as their high semantic quality may mask contextual deficits.
| S-EPMC10731554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The guidelines recommend intensive blood pressure control. Randomized trials have focused on the relevance of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering, leaving the safety of the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction unresolved. There are data available which show that low DBP should not stop clinicians from achieving SBP targets; however, registries and analyses of randomized trials present conflicting results. The purpose of the study was to apply machine learning (ML) algorithms to determine, whether DBP is an important risk factor to predict stroke, heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), and primary outcome in the SPRINT trial database. Methods: ML experiments were performed using decision tree, random forest, k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayesian, multi-layer perceptron, and logistic regression algorithms, including and excluding DBP as the risk factor in an unselected and selected (DBP < 70 mmHg) study population. Results: Including DBP as the risk factor did not change the performance of the machine learning models evaluated using accuracy, AUC, mean, and weighted F-measure, and was not required to make proper predictions of stroke, MI, HF, and primary outcome. Conclusions: Analyses of the SPRINT trial data using ML algorithms imply that DBP should not be treated as an independent risk factor when intensifying blood pressure control.
| S-EPMC9785044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence-based medical advice on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self-limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID-19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a "cytokine storm" leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID-19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID-19-related topics should be based on more coordinated high-quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID-19 and allergic disease.
| S-EPMC7323196 | biostudies-literature