Clinical trial · Observational
Using Surveys to Examine the Association of Exposure to ML Mortality Risk Predictions With Medical Oncologists' Prognostic Accuracy and Decision-making
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
Nearly half of cancer patients in the US will receive care that is inconsistent with their wishes prior to death. Early advanced care planning (ACP) and palliative care improve goal-concordant care and symptoms and reduce unnecessary utilization. A promising strategy to increase ACP and palliative care is to identify patients at risk of mortality earlier in the disease course in order to target these services. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been used in various industries, including medicine, to accurately predict risk of adverse outcomes and direct earlier resources. "Human-machine collaborations" - systems that leverage both ML and human intuition - have been shown to improve predictions and decision-making in various situations, but it is not known whether human-machine collaborations can improve prognostic accuracy and lead to greater and earlier ACP and palliative care. In this study, we contacted a national sample of medical oncologists and invited them complete a vignette-based survey. Our goal was to examine the association of exposure to ML mortality risk predictions with clinicians' prognostic accuracy and decision-making. We presented a series of six vignettes describing three clinical scenarios specific to a patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) that differ by age, gender, performance status, smoking history, extent of disease, symptoms and molecular status. We will use these vignette-based surveys to examine the association of exposure to ML mortality risk predictions with medical oncologists' prognostic accuracy and decision-making.
Conditions
Conditions (1)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oncology | — | UNRESOLVED | — |
Interventions
Interventions (1)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Survey | Other | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (6)
- label
- 1A 2B 3C
- description
- 1\. Intermediate; 1.A. Reference dependent; 2. Poor; 2.B. Absolute prognosis; 3. Good; 3.C. Both
- interventionNames
- Other: Survey
- label
- 1A 2C 3B
- description
- 1\. Intermediate; 1.A. Reference dependent; 2. Poor; 2.C. Both; 3. Good; 3.B. Absolute prognosis
- interventionNames
- Other: Survey
- label
- 1B 2A 3C
- description
- 1\. Intermediate; 1.B. Absolute; 2. Poor; 2.A. Reference dependent; 3. Good; 3.C. Both
- interventionNames
- Other: Survey
- label
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- All
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: * Medical oncologists who treat lung cancer Exclusion Criteria: * Medical oncologists who do not see lung cancer patients
References
Publications (0)
Data not yet available