A New Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology: A Delphi Study to Define Levels of Evidence in Tumor Pathology.

The hierarchy of evidence is a fundamental concept in evidence-based medicine, but existing models can be challenging to apply in laboratory-based health care disciplines, such as pathology, where the types of evidence and contexts are significantly different from interventional medicine. This project aimed to define a comprehensive and complementary framework of new levels of evidence for evaluating research in tumor pathology-introducing a novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology collaboratively designed by pathologists with help from epidemiologists, public health professionals, oncologists, and scientists, specifically tailored for use by pathologists-and to aid in the production of the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors (WCT) evidence gap maps. To achieve this, we adopted a modified Delphi approach, encompassing iterative online surveys, expert oversight, and external peer review, to establish the criteria for evidence in tumor pathology, determine the optimal structure for the new hierarchy, and ascertain the levels of confidence for each type of evidence. Over a span of 4 months and 3 survey rounds, we collected 1104 survey responses, culminating in a 3-day hybrid meeting in 2023, where a new hierarchy was unanimously agreed upon. The hierarchy is organized into 5 research theme groupings closely aligned with the subheadings of the WCT, and it consists of 5 levels of evidence-level P1 representing evidence types that merit the greatest level of confidence and level P5 reflecting the greatest risk of bias. For the first time, an international collaboration of pathology experts, supported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has successfully united to establish a standardized approach for evaluating evidence in tumor pathology. We intend to implement this novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology to map the available evidence, thereby enriching and informing the WCT effectively.

Moving Forward on Tumor Pathology Research Reporting: A Guide for Pathologists From the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors Living Evidence Gap Map by Tumour Type Group.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be an unfamiliar territory for those working in tumor pathology research, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to undertake an EBM approach to planning and reporting histopathology-based studies. In this article, reviewed and endorsed by the Word Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer's International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research, we aim to help pathologists and researchers understand the basics of planning an evidence-based tumor pathology research study, as well as our recommendations on how to report the findings from these. We introduce some basic EBM concepts, a framework for research questions, and thoughts on study design and emphasize the concept of reporting standards. There are many study-specific reporting guidelines available, and we provide an overview of these. However, existing reporting guidelines perhaps do not always fit tumor pathology research papers, and hence, here, we collate the key reporting data set together into one generic checklist that we think will simplify the task for pathologists. The article aims to complement our recent hierarchy of evidence for tumor pathology and glossary of evidence (study) types in tumor pathology. Together, these articles should help any researcher get to grips with the basics of EBM for planning and publishing research in tumor pathology, as well as encourage an improved standard of the reports available to us all in the literature.

Comparison of machine learning algorithms for clinical event prediction (risk of coronary heart disease).

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the utility of several supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms for predicting clinical events in terms of their internal validity and accuracy. The results, which were obtained using two statistical software platforms, were also compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data used in this research come from the open database of the Framingham Heart Study, which originated in 1948 in Framingham, Massachusetts as a prospective study of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Through data mining processes, three data models were elaborated and a comparative methodological study between the different ML algorithms - decision tree, random forest, support vector machines, neural networks, and logistic regression - was carried out. The global selection criterium for choosing the right set of hyperparameters and the type of data manipulation was the area under a curve (AUC). The software tools used to analyze the data were R-Studio® and RapidMiner®. RESULTS: The Framingham study open database contains 4240 observations. The algorithm that yielded the greatest AUC when analyzing the data in R-Studio was neural network applied to a model that excluded all observations in which there was at least one missing value (AUC = 0.71); when analyzing the data in RapidMiner and applying the same model, the best algorithm was support vector machines (AUC = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: ML algorithms can reinforce the diagnostic and prognostic capacity of traditional regression techniques. Differences between the applicability of those algorithms and the results obtained with them were a function of the software platforms used in the data analysis.

Impact of Chronic Disease Self-Management Program on the Self-Perceived Health of People in Areas of Social Vulnerability in Asturias, Spain.

The Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) focuses on a health promotion perspective with a salutogenic approach, reinforcing the pillars of self-efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the CDSMP on Self-perceived Health (SPH) in disadvantaged areas of Asturias, España. The study included vulnerable adults with experience of chronic diseases for over six months, along with their caregivers. The intervention consisted of a six-session workshop led by two trained peers. SPH was evaluated by administering the initial item of the SF-12 questionnaire at both baseline and six months post-intervention. To evaluate the variable "Change in SPH" [improvement; remained well; worsening/no improvement (reference category)], global and disaggregated by sex multivariate multinomial logistic regression models were applied. There were 332 participants (mean = 60.5 years; 33.6% were at risk of social vulnerability; 66.8% had low incomes). Among the participants, 22.9% reported an improvement in their SPH, without statistically significant sex-based differences, while 38.9% remained in good health. The global model showed age was linked to decreased "improvement" probability (RRRa = 0.96), and the "remaining well" likelihood drops with social risk (RRRa = 0.42). In men, the probability of "remaining well" decreased by having secondary/higher education (RRRa = 0.25) and increased by cohabitation (RRRa = 5.11). Women at social risk were less likely to report "remaining well" (RRRa = 0.36). In conclusion, six months after the intervention, 22.9% of the participants had improved SPH. Age consistently decreased the improvement in the different models.