MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Information needs of men on androgen deprivation therapy

2011· article· en· W1749237836 on OpenAlexafffund
Tony Soeyonggo, Padraig Warde, Neil Fleshner, Narhari Timilshina, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAndrogen deprivation therapyMedicineCohortProstate cancerRegretAdjuvant therapyInternal medicineOncologyCohort studyAndrogenCancerHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Needs assessment survey Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Although androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used to treat men with prostate cancer, little is known about the information needs of patients on ADT. We found that patients are generally very satisfied with using ADT and expressed minimal decisional regret with its use up to four years later. For men receiving ADT in the adjuvant setting, their survival estimates with the addition of ADT were quite reasonable when compared to findings in randomized trails. A key area to enhance patient education appears to be side effects, especially around hot flashes and fatigue, which were also the most bothersome treatment sequelae for patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate information needs of men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to English-speaking prostate cancer patients receiving ADT adjuvant to radical therapy or for biochemical relapse. Three cohorts were recruited based on duration of ADT use: <6 months (cohort 1), 6-18 months (cohort 2) and 18 months to 4 years (cohort 3). Several validated questionnaires were used, including the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), Satisfaction with Treatment Decision Scale (SWD) and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). Patients on adjuvant ADT were asked to estimate their overall survival with and without ADT. RESULTS: Eighty-five men were recruited, of whom 91.8% were receiving a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, 4.7% were receiving anti-androgen monotherapy and 3.5% were receiving combined androgen blockade. Patients preferred the following decision-making roles: 23.5% active, 50.6% collaborative, 27.0% passive. Mean patient satisfaction for ADT use was high at 24.0/30 and decisional regret was low at 7.9/25. There was a perceived overall survival benefit of 3.9-6.9% at 5 years, 3.6-17.8% at 10 years and 5.7-18.1% at 15 years with the addition of adjuvant ADT. Hot flushes and fatigue were reported as the most common theoretical adverse effects as well as those experienced most commonly by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients on ADT were generally satisfied with their decisions to start ADT and expressed minimal decisional regret up to 4 years later. A key area to enhance patient education appears to be adverse effects, especially around hot flushes and fatigue.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207