Search results

ABSTRACTUnderstanding how people search through and combine information before making decisions is an important concern in the study of decision making and in the design of decision support systems (DSS). The purpose of this study is to examine DSS search strategies in relation to the body of empirical research on information load. Prior research is examined in relation to basic empirically‐testable hypotheses and compared to the results of this study as a way of validating the procedures used here. The transfer of information load empirical research to a DSS scenario is confirmed statistically. Then, results of an analysis of information search patterns under DSS conditions are described. Finally, implications for DSS design are discussed in terms of possible search support mechanisms for specific search strategies.

ABSTRACTWe propose the use of computerized process tracing (CPT) tools as an appropriate approach for monitoring the information acquisition and evaluation phase of specific decision processes. CPT tools are unobtrusive and seem particularly relevant for evaluating certain decision tasks that may be supported by decision support systems (DSS). CPT tools can be an important component of DSS development. An information systems research taxonomy developed by previous researchers [29] [36] is used to position research work involving the methodology of CPT. Using a critique suggested by Libby [28], CPT tools are evaluated and compared to alternative process tracing tools. A brief empirical example using CPT is provided, and future uses relative to DSS are suggested. The appendix includes an example of a specific CPT tool.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use. ; Development of this roadmap received support from Cancer Research UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant references A/15267, A/16463, A/16464, A/16465, A/16466 and A/18097), the EORTC Cancer Research Fund, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (grant agreement number 115151), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) companies' in kind contribution.