Not telling the truth: circumstances leading to concealment of diagnosis and prognosis from cancer patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While autonomy has gradually become a key concept in the doctor-patient relationship, truth-telling is far from being the norm in many countries in the world. Despite the general agreement on the benefits of open communication between physicians and cancer patients, there is still strong resistance against disclosure of cancer diagnosis and prognosis in many cultures. Although fear of causing psychological morbidity to patients and their reluctance to find out the truth are two main justifications of non-disclosure attitudes, there are other important contributing factors that need to be further explored and better understood including those related to the relatives, doctors and healthcare systems. Cultural disparities in attitudes towards truth-telling persist; however, these differences should not be used as excuses not to respect the rights and individual preferences of cancer patients by making assumptions based on their age, sex, type of cancer, language and/or cultural background.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it