It's the "Good" Cancer, So Who Cares? Perceived Lack of Support Among Young Thyroid Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the survivorship experience of young adult patients with thyroid cancer. RESEARCH APPROACH: A qualitative, descriptive study. SETTING: Four Canadian provinces, with most participants from Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: 12 young adult thyroid cancer survivors who participated in a larger study on follow-up care needs consisting of 55 young adult cancer survivors. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Telephone interviews were conducted with cancer survivors who were diagnosed from age 18-39 years and were 1-5 years post-treatment. FINDINGS: All 12 thyroid cancer survivors discussed the feeling that their cancer experiences often were downplayed because thyroid cancer is labeled as the "good" cancer. Many said that they were not considered real patients with cancer by healthcare providers and other patients with cancer, and they were unable or unwilling to access support programs or assistance from healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer can have an impact on a person's life regardless of the prognosis. Being diagnosed with thyroid cancer at a young age can pose additional challenges because of the lack of available support to address needs specific to young adults. INTERPRETATION: Healthcare providers must recognize the needs of thyroid cancer survivors and encourage them to access supportive services. KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION: Patients with thyroid cancer believe that their needs often are overlooked because of high survival rates, and they have difficulty accessing support resources and finding help. Young adults with cancer often have unique support needs. Support needs may not be the same for all young adult patients with cancer, and those needs should be recognized and addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".