MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001620001 · doi:10.1177/107484070100700204

What Questions Do Families of Patients With Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Want Answered?

2001· article· en· W2001620001 on OpenAlexaff
Deb Feldman‐Stewart, Michael Brundage, William J. Mackillop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily medicineMedicineProstate cancerSet (abstract data type)Family memberCancerInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was designed to determine the questions that family members of recently diagnosed early-stage prostate cancer patients want addressed and to compare their information priorities with the patient’s priorities. Surveys were distributed to families of 38 patients who had also been surveyed. Respondents judged the importance of each of 93 questions (essential/desired/no opinion/avoid). Twenty-two (58%) family members responded. Most respondents rated most questions as essential (mean: 51 of 93 questions); however, overall, agreement on question ratings was poor (mean agreement: 42.5%, kappa: 0.19). Agreement between a patient and his family member was only slightly better (mean: 56.4%). A core set of 29 questions was identified that most (> 67%) respondents agreed were essential. Although a core set of important questions could be identified, that core would not cover most family members’ essential information needs. The information priorities of the patient often differ from those of his family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207