Bibliographic record
Abstract
The virtues of screening men for prostate cancer continue to be debated in political and public health, as well as clinical forums. Science has been unable to accurately predict screening benefits, yet many men are required to make informed decisions about prostate cancer screening. Clinicians' screening practices have been reported, but little research attention has been given to patients' experiences. The purpose of this study was to describe patients' perspectives of being screened and subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Thirty-five Anglo-Australian men were interviewed, and the data were analyzed using ethnographic content analysis. The findings indicated that most participants experienced screening as a continuum of 3 tests, rather than the simple prostate-specific antigen blood test they had often anticipated. Commitment to a definitive diagnosis when abnormality was detected through screening and uptake of active treatment(s) when prostate cancer was confirmed were strongly represented in this study. The findings offer insight to the complex and often rapid sequence of events that can accompany prostate cancer screening. This has implications for the information that needs to be discussed with men before, rather than after prostate cancer screening has commenced.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".