Perspectives on quality and content of information on the internet for adolescents with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality and content of Internet information about cancer from the perspectives of adolescents with cancer (AWC), their parents and healthcare professionals (HCP). METHODS: Key words relevant to pediatric cancer were searched across 6 search engines. Quality of information was appraised using the DISCERN tool. Website content completeness, accuracy, readability, cultural sensitivity, and desirability were assessed. RESULTS: Only 29 websites had DISCERN scores above 50 (indicating fair quality; mean 55.76 ± 8.23, range 42.50-70.5). The majority of sites targeted parents and only four (14%) were specific to AWC. Overall completeness of the sites was rated 11.46 out of 20 (± 3.60; range 4-17.5) and accuracy was rated 4/4, indicating high accuracy with moderate completeness. The average SMOG score was 11.87 (± 2.51, range 7.7-18.67) and the Flesch Reading Ease score was 57.44 (± 16.94, range 9.1-92.4) indicating that the material was too difficult to read. The average cultural sensitivity scores for the Format, Written message and Visual material scales were 3.08/4 (± 0.53, range 2-4), 3.48/4 (± 0.41, range 2.6-4) and 2.84/4 (± 1.03, range 0-4) indicating the websites were adequately culturally sensitive. On Average, websites had 4/21 features from the desirability checklist, indicating the sites had low desirability. CONCLUSION: Given the paucity of high quality Internet health information at an appropriate reading level for AWC there is a critical need for HCP's to develop Internet programs to meet their unique needs.
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) | 0.000 | 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".