linjc16/ctgov huggingface dataset:
Post-Hoc Enthusiasm and Wariness

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The post-hoc fallacy (also termed the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy) has been recognized for centuries with endless relevance. The general concept in medical care is that patients who improve after a treatment are not necessary patients who improve because of a treatment. Modern medicine provides multiple opportunities to examine such pitfalls of judgment due to the prevailing uncertainty, incompleteness of our understanding pathogenic mechanisms, and natural tendency to connect treatments to outcomes. In this study, we will investigate whether judgments about vitamin supplementation might demonstrate the post-hoc fallacy.

Detailed Description
-----------------
We plan to conduct a brief survey of pharmacies portraying a patient in two slightly different versions. One version will portray the patient who feels better after starting a vitamin supplement whereas another version will portray the patient who feels unchanged after starting a vitamin supplement. The patients will be randomly assigned to participants and otherwise contain identical information. Judgments will be measured by eliciting participants recommendation about continuing the vitamin (Appendix_Script).

Official Title
-----------------
Post-Hoc Enthusiasm and Wariness

Conditions
-----------------
Health Behavior

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Patient self-report


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Community pharmacist Exclusion Criteria: Outside Ontario
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Success<br>Symptomatic improvement present | Other: Patient self-report<br>* Simulated patient following structured script<br>|
| Experimental: Failure<br>Symptomatic improvement absent | Other: Patient self-report<br>* Simulated patient following structured script<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement | Health provider clinical recommendation | Short-term (less than 5 minutes) |
Evaluation Of Intra-Operative Neuro-Monitoring Alarm During Complex Spine Surgery

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Iatrogenic spinal cord injury is the most feared complication of complex spine surgery. The incidence of neurological complications for spinal deformity surgery has been estimated by the Scoliosis Research Society as 1%, except when a combined approach is used, where the rate increases to 1.87% [1]. Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) techniques are usually implemented during spine surgery to avoid nefarious abuse of the nervous system, which can cause postoperative problem [2]. In 1992 a Scoliosis Research Society study concluded that the use of intraoperative spinal cord neurophysiological monitoring during operative procedures including instrumentation should be considered ''a viable alternative as well as an adjunct to the use of the wake-up test during spinal surgery'' [5]. The benefit of using neuromonitoring has been validated by numerous studies involving scoliosis correction, revision surgeries and vertebral osteotomies.

Detailed Description
-----------------
The trend in IONM usage in the current literature, which may be a direct consequence of improved efficacy of the procedure, and the development of optimized treatment algorithm [6]. Nevertheless, it is well known that the use of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) alone may be ineffective in detecting a motor tract deficit [7, 8]. As a result, various methods for monitoring the motor tract of the spinal cord have been developed. The most commonly used stimulation technique is transcranial electric stimulation (TES) of the primary motor cortex by corkscrew electrodes placed in the scalp, to produce myogenic motor evoked potential[9]. The combination of SEPs and TES-MEPs provides global monitoring coverage of spinal cord function [10]. Based on the available evidence, it is recommended that the use of multimodality neuromonitoring be considered in complex spine surgery where the spinal cord or nerve roots are deemed to be at risk [11].

Official Title
-----------------
Evaluation Of Intra-Operative Neuro-Monitoring Alarm During Complex Spine Surgery

Conditions
-----------------
Spine Injuries and Disorders

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: patient with spine deformities patient with sever cervical and lumbar degenerative diseases patient with combined cervical and lumbar diseases patient with spine tumours Exclusion Criteria: • cases with mild to moderate degenerative diseases simple spine procedures
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------
What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurement the incidence of new neurologic deficits (NNDs) and estimate sensitivity and specificity of IONM modalities | neurological examination | immediate measurement |
Evaluation of Morphology Abnormal Cornea Stability With Corneal Biomechanical

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To evaluate the corneal biomechanical properties of stable eyes with abnormal morphology, and introduce a biomechanical stable index to evaluate the stability of the eyes with abnormal morphology at the first diagnosis.

Official Title
-----------------
Prediction for Abnormal Topography Corneas Using New Biomechanical Parameter - Biomechanical Stable Index

Conditions
-----------------
Keratoconus, Stable

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Pentacam and Corvis ST


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥ 20/20; No other eye diseases except myopia and astigmatism; The cornea was transparent, and there was no cloud or pannus; No clinical manifestation of keratoconus（Corneal stromal thinning, Cone-shaped anterior protrusions, Fleischers ring, Vogts striae, Epithelial or subepithelial scarring） Exclusion Criteria:1) corneal disease; 2) ocular trauma; 3) Patients were required to stop wearing soft contact lenses for at least 2 weeks and rigid contact lenses for at least 4 weeks before examination; 4) Pregnant and lactating women;
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| stable group<br> | Other: Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>* morphological and biomechanical parameters of corneal were obtain by Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>|
| subclinical keratoconus<br> | Other: Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>* morphological and biomechanical parameters of corneal were obtain by Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>|
| normal group<br> | Other: Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>* morphological and biomechanical parameters of corneal were obtain by Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>|
| follow up group<br> | Other: Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>* morphological and biomechanical parameters of corneal were obtain by Pentacam and Corvis ST<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| stable | No alterations in morphological(Pentacam parameters, BAD<0.42, TCT<10μm) and biomechanical(Corvis ST, parametersCBI<0.2, SPA1<10) parameters between the first and last follow-up. | one year |
Cluster Headache Treatment Survey

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The objective of this study is to survey patients with cluster headache about treatment effectiveness and their views on treatments. Participants will complete one brief questionnaire online.

Official Title
-----------------
Cluster Headache Treatment Survey

Conditions
-----------------
Cluster Headache

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache that has been diagnosed by a health care professional (no documentation is needed, participant must simply state that he or she has been diagnosed) Exclusion Criteria: Unable to speak English (the survey is only in English) Unable to use a computer to take the online survey Unable to provide consent

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache<br>Patients with a diagnosis of episodic or chronic cluster headache, as diagnosed by a health care professional and to be confirmed by questions on the study survey. | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Effectiveness of cluster headache treatment as assessed by a survey |  | at the time of survey completion, expected to be 6-12 months | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Opinions on new cluster headache treatment as assessed by a survey |  | at the time of survey completion, expected to be 6-12 months |
A Prospective Longitudinal Study in Adults With Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This prospective longitudinal study will follow participants with Multifocal Motor Neuropathy over time and collect data on their clinical outcomes, quality of life, and use of health care resources. Participants will follow their regular visit schedule with their treating physician, except for an optional second visit occurring 7 to 14 days after the start of the study to collect biomarker data. No IMP will be administered.

Official Title
-----------------
A Multicenter Prospective Longitudinal Study of Clinical Outcomes, Disease Course, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Health Care Resource Utilization in Adult Patients With Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Conditions
-----------------
Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Is at least the local legal age of consent for clinical studies when signing the ICF Is capable of providing signed informed consent and complying with protocol requirements Has an existing or new diagnosis of MMN made by a neuromuscular specialist or neurologist Exclusion Criteria: Is currently participating in any clinical study with an IMP Has other medical conditions that could affect the assessment of MMN

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------
What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| To characterize MMN patient profiles for participants |  | up to 24 months | 
| To assess the MMN disease management and disease course |  | up to 24 months | 
| To assess outcome measures specific to MMN disease and their evolution over time |  | up to 24 months | 
| To estimate the burden of MMN on participants' quality of life |  | up to 24 months | 
| To estimate the economic burden for participants with MMN |  | up to 24 months | 
| To collect data on relevant disease biomarkers |  | up to 24 months |
Immunotherapy in Uncommon and 20ins EGFR-mut Lung Cancers

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Immunotherapy effectiveness and optimal combination strategy in lung cancers with EGFR uncommon and 20ins mutations was unclear. Based on 627 lung adenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutations and receiving immunotherapy, we reported that patients with EGFR uncommon mutations had better response to immunotherapy, than EGFR 19del/L858R or 20in mutations. Immunotherapy monotherapy or plus chemotherapy was identified as better combination strategy for EGFR uncommon or 20ins mutations, respectively. Higher tumor mutation burden, more M1 macrophage, less Tregs and M2 macrophages infiltration, but not PD-L1 expression was found to be associated with EGFR uncommon mutations, compared to EGFR 19del/L858R or 20in mutations. These findings revealed diverse response and optimal combination strategy of lung adenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutation subtypes, promoting rethinking about current immunotherapy application and prolonging survivals of them.

Official Title
-----------------
Distinct Survivals and Optimal Combination of Immunotherapy Plus Immunophenotype in Uncommon and 20ins EGFR-mut Lung Adenocarcinoma: a Retrospective Multi-center Study

Conditions
-----------------
Lung Cancer

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Survival analysis


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: age≥18 years, advanced or recurrent LUAD confirmed by pathology, harboring EGFR mutations confirmed by super amplification refractory mutation system (super-ARMS) or next-generation sequencing (NGS), receiving anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy at least once, Radiologically evaluable according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) Exclusion Criteria: -

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Other: Survival analysis|Immunotheray responses and long-term survival were evaluated in classical and other EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinomas|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tumor response | Partial response, disease progression, and stable disease were defined according to the RECIST v1.1 | From date of initial treatment until the date of first documented progression or date of death from any cause, whichever came first, assessed up to 100 months | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Progression-free survivals | Progression-free survivals were defined as the time from the initial treatment to the date of disease progression or death | 5 years |
Machine Learning Algorithms for Individual Bladder Filling Level Prediction

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The aim of this study is to evaluate the bladder filling level of the study participants using the inContAlert sensor. The generated data will be used for the evaluation and optimization of the machine learning algorithms to be able to make precise predictions about the individual bladder fill level. In particular, the hypothesis that the bladder filling level can be estimated by the algorithm will be tested. When testing the hypothesis, it should be determined which deviation (measured by the mean absolute percentage error) of the estimation/prediction differs from the actual value (obtained by measuring the urine output using a measuring cup in combination with kitchen scales).

Official Title
-----------------
Evaluation and Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms for Individual Bladder Filling Level Prediction by a Sensor System

Conditions
-----------------
Monitoring of the Bladder Filling

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: inContAlert


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: informed consent Exclusion Criteria: Missing informed consent

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Device: inContAlert|InContAlert is a non-invasive sensor technology to measure the bladder filling level for incontinence patients. The device is fixed about 2cm above the pubic bone using a patch or strap and does not require surgery. The data collected from the patient is analyzed using deep learning algorithms. The bladder filling level determined in this way is then displayed on an app.|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Difference between the predicted bladder filling level and the actual value | Difference (measured as mean absolute error in percent) of the predicted bladder filling level (measured in ml) and the actual value (determined by measuring the volume of urine in ml with a measuring cup in combination with a kitchen scale). | December 2023 | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
bladder monitoring, digital Health, bladder filling level, incontinence, neurourology, neurogenic bladder, spinal cord injury
Effects of Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
to find out the Effects of Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis

Official Title
-----------------
Effects of Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis

Conditions
-----------------
Osteoarthritis

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Diagnostic Test: Isometric
* Diagnostic Test: Isotonic Exercise


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Female patients with osteoarthritis Age group of 35 to 60 Exclusion Criteria: Patients admitted in ICU or HDU Patients with any mental illness

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 35 Years
Maximum Age: 60 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
Female

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Other: Isometric<br> | Diagnostic Test: Isometric<br>* Effects of Isometric Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis<br>|
| Experimental: Isotonic Exercise<br> | Diagnostic Test: Isotonic Exercise<br>* Effects of Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| WOMAC Scale | Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis by using WOMAC Scale | 6 Months | 
| VAS score | Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercise in Female Patients With Osteoarthritis by using VAS score | 6 Months |
Open Membrane Technique as an Innovative Minimally Invasive Technique

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Sixteen patients with horizontal deficiencies in the posterior mandible were treated with the Open Membrane Technique (OMT). Dense PTFE membranes covering an allograft biomaterial were used without any attempt to passivate the flap. Flap closure with an open wound (membrane exposure) was monitored weekly for up to 6w at the time of membrane removal. At implant placement, soft and hard tissue gains were assessed clinically and radiographically. Bone cores were harvested for histological analysis from the implant preparation sites

Official Title
-----------------
Open Membrane Technique as an Innovative Minimally Invasive Technique for Hard and Soft Tissue Augmentation: a Prospective Case Series

Conditions
-----------------
Bone Graft, Keratinized Tissue

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: Bone augmentation


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Healthy adults Free of any systemic disease affecting bone metabolism Highly compliant Good oral hygiene Willing to sign informed consents prior to their inclusion Exclusion Criteria: Untreated periodontal disease Heavy smokers Excessive alcohol consumption Uncontrolled systemic conditions

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 70 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Other
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Other: Patients requiring horizontal bone augmentation in the posterior mandible<br> | Procedure: Bone augmentation<br>* Dense PTFE membranes covering an allograft biomaterial were used without any attempt to passivate the flap<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hard tissue gain | Bone thickness measured clinically and on CBCT (during bone grafting and at re-entry) | 5 months | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Soft tissue gain | Keratinized tissue measured clinically before and after the treatment (at implant placement) | 5 months |