Systematic Review of Internet Patient Information on Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer often seek information on the Internet to help them make treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of Web-based patient information regarding surgery for colorectal cancer. DESIGN: This study is a cross-sectional survey of patient-directed Web sites. SETTINGS: The search engine Google (Mountain View, CA) and the search terms "colorectal cancer surgery," "colon cancer surgery," and "rectal cancer surgery" were used to identify Web sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess quality, we used the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire developed to analyze written consumer health information on treatment options to aid consumers in evaluating the quality of health-related information on treatment choices for a specific health problem. An additional colorectal cancer-specific questionnaire was used to evaluate Web site content for colorectal cancer surgical treatment. Two independent assessors reviewed each Web site. RESULTS: Searches revealed a total of 91 distinct Web sites, of which 37 met inclusion criteria. Web site affiliation was as follows: 32% open-access general information, 24% hospital/health care organization, and 19% professional medical society. Twelve (32.4%) Web sites had clear aims, 10 (27.0%) had identifiable references to their sources of information, and 9 (24.3%) noted the date of published information. Ten sites (27.0%) provided some description of the surgical procedure, 8 (21.6%) discussed either the risks or the benefits of surgery, and 4 (10.8%) addressed quality-of-life issues. Nineteen (51.4%) Web sites discussed postoperative complications, and 7 (18.9%) discussed stoma-related maintenance/care. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size and interrater reliability bias are limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of online patient information regarding colorectal cancer treatment is highly variable, often incomplete, and does not adequately convey the information necessary for patients to make well-informed medical decisions regarding treatment for colorectal cancer. An opportunity exists for professional medical societies to create more comprehensive online patient information materials that may serve as a resource to physicians and their patients (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A122).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".