Men treated for prostate cancer did not consider urinary, bowel, or sexual dysfunction as problems of health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Korfage IJ, Hak T, de Koning HJ, et al . Patients’ perceptions of the side-effects of prostate cancer treatment—a qualitative interview study. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:911–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How do men who have been treated for prostate cancer perceive the side effects of urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction? Qualitative study. University Medical Centre Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 33 men 60–74 years of age who had been treated for prostate cancer and had experienced urinary, bowel, or sexual dysfunctions after, but not before, treatment. All men were recruited from a cohort of prostate cancer patients who had completed self report questionnaires before treatment and at 6 month, 12 month, and 5 year follow up. Questionnaires included disease specific and generic quality of life (QOL) measures. Responses indicated both high levels of dysfunction and high generic scores. Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted at a mean of 5–6 years after prostate cancer treatment. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. To explore the discrepancy … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSocial%2Bscience%2B%2526%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DSoc%2BSci%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DKorfage%26rft.auinit1%253DI.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D63%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D911%26rft.epage%253D919%26rft.atitle%253DPatients%2527%2Bperceptions%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bside-effects%2Bof%2Bprostate%2Bcancer%2Btreatment--a%2Bqualitative%2Binterview%2Bstudy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.socscimed.2006.01.027%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16798130%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.027&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16798130&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F1%2F32.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239824500008&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".