Evaluation of patient-perceived satisfaction with photodynamic therapy for Bowen disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to formally evaluate patient concerns and patient-perceived satisfaction with photodynamic therapy (PDT) using topical application of 5-aminolevulinic acid for Bowen disease (BD). DESIGN: Initial focus groups and mailout questionnaire. SETTING: tertiary care hospital. METHODS: a novel 32-item self-reported patient satisfaction questionnaire was mailed out to all patients treated with PDT for BD from January 1, 2000, to March 31, 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: a written questionnaire addressing side effects experienced, self-perceived effectiveness, and the personal and social consequences of PDT. RESULTS: one hundred thirty-two adults were treated with PDT for BD over this time period. Ninety-five patients (47% male, 53% female) completed the questionnaire. A majority (> 90%) indicated a very favourable impression of the effectiveness of PDT for BD and that side effects were mild. The most significant side effects were a burning sensation (21%) and crusting or scabbing (14%). Side effects were judged to be predictable. The process of treatment and overall time demands were judged by only 7% of respondents to be problematic. The most substantial limitations with PDT were social limitations secondary to treatment (26%), self-consciousness (28%), and skin appearance in the immediate posttreatment period (30%). Respondent reliability in response to questions was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: PDT is favourably received by those diagnosed with BD. PDT resulted in a high degree of perceived satisfaction for those patients with BD. Based on these data, PDT is supported as a viable method of treatment for BD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".