MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570541650 · doi:10.1002/cncr.29548

Thyroid cancer patient perceptions of radioactive iodine treatment choice: Follow‐up from a decision‐aid randomized trial

2015· article· en· W1570541650 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna M. Sawka, Sharon E. Straus, Gary Rodin, Lineke Heus, James D. Brierley, Richard Tsang, Lorne Rotstein, Shereen Ezzat, Phillip Segal, Amiram Gafni, Kevin E. Thorpe, David P. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineRadioactive iodineRandomized controlled trialThyroid cancerCancerIodineThyroidOncologyIntensive care medicineMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (P-DAs) inform medical decision making, but longer term effects are unknown. This article describes extended follow-up from a thyroid cancer treatment P-DA trial. METHODS: In this single-center, parallel-design randomized controlled trial conducted at a Canadian tertiary/quaternary care center, early-stage thyroid cancer patients from a P-DA trial were contacted 15 to 23 months after randomization/radioactive iodine (RAI) decision making to evaluate longer term outcomes. It was previously reported that the use of the computerized P-DA in thyroid cancer patients considering postsurgical RAI treatment significantly improved medical knowledge in comparison with usual care alone. The P-DA and control groups were compared for the following outcomes: feeling informed about the RAI treatment choice, decision satisfaction, decision regret, cancer-related worry, and physician trust. In a subgroup of 20 participants, in-depth interviews were conducted for a qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent (70 of 74) of the original population enrolled in follow-up at a mean of 17.1 months after randomization. P-DA users perceived themselves to be significantly more 1) informed about the treatment choice (P = .008), 2) aware of options (P = .009), 3) knowledgeable about treatment benefits (P = .020), and 4) knowledgeable about treatment risks/side effects (P = .001) in comparison with controls. There were no significant group differences in decision satisfaction (P = .142), decision regret (P = .199), cancer-related worry (P = .645), mood (P = .211), or physician trust (P = .764). In the qualitative analysis, the P-DA was perceived to have increased patient knowledge and confidence in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: The P-DA improved cancer survivors' actual and long-term perceived medical knowledge with no adverse effects. More research on the long-term outcomes of P-DA use is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207