Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low‐risk prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance is a management strategy that offers patients the hope of avoiding the side effects associated with unnecessary treatment. This study identifies the resources required by men who choose to be on active surveillance to support them in their treatment decision. OBJECTIVES: • To examine the decision-making processes of men on active surveillance (AS). • To identify the resources that men want to access to make, support and sustain them while on AS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Three-part survey developed for this study based on a qualitative study of 25 men on AS. • Survey items explored: role men assumed with their physician in treatment decision-making, factors influencing decision to go on AS, and resources required while on AS. • Surveys mailed out to cross-sectional sample of men on AS for less than 10 years. RESULTS: • 27% of the 73 men reported assuming an active role in treatment decision-making with their urologist, 41% a shared role and 32% a passive role. • 82% of men reported being comfortable and 90% being satisfied with their decision to be on AS. • 55% reported not being anxious about the cancer progressing while on AS. • Urologist's opinion, current age, and impact of treatment on urinary function were main factors influencing treatment decision. • Information on future treatment options, non-traditional treatments and diet considered most important resources. CONCLUSIONS: • Results suggest that once men make a decision to go on AS, they are satisfied with their decision and few report being anxious about progression of cancer. • Men are strongly influenced by the treating specialist in taking up AS. • Additional information and psychological support resources are required for men on AS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".