6 themes described how women with early-stage breast cancer perceived and experienced treatment decision makingCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the processes or stages of treatment decision making (TDM) as perceived by women with early-stage breast cancer? Qualitative study. Teaching hospital and regional cancer centre in Ontario, Canada. Purposive sample of 21 women (age range 34–79 y), who had early-stage breast cancer, were referred for consultation about surgical or postsurgical systemic therapy options, and could speak and understand English. Treatment consultations with surgeons or medical oncologists were videotaped. In semistructured interviews 2 weeks after the treatment decision was made, women described how they made the decision and then watched tapes of their initial consultation. Tapes were stopped at predetermined times or spontaneously by participants when TDM appeared to be taking place, and women were asked to describe their thoughts at that time. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically. 6 themes described women’s perceptions or experiences of TDM. (1) Before oncology consultations, women sought information about treatment options and resources from informal (family and friends) and formal …
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".