Patient's Preferences for Adjuvant Postoperative Chemoradiation Therapy in Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to elicit patient's preferences with regard to adjuvant postoperative chemoradiation therapy in rectal cancer. METHODS: Forty-seven previously treated colorectal cancer patients underwent a structured interview and were presented with two scenarios involving surgery for rectal cancer: surgery alone, or surgery followed by postoperative chemoradiation therapy. Acute and long-term health states for each options were described. Their willingness to trade-off side-effects for treatment efficacy was evaluated by using the probability trade-off method. RESULTS: The age and gender distribution of the cohort were comparable with the general colon cancer population. Rectal cancer had been diagnosed in 20 individuals. The majority of patients valued their disease-free status in light of the anticipated long-term effects on their quality of life. The median point at which patients switched their preference was 5 percent, a value reflecting the critical local recurrence rate acceptable. The important items that influenced decisions were the effects on bowel function and fear of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This small study demonstrates a substantial variation in patient's preferences with regard to postoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Further studies in the preoperative setting are warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".