What do Canadian uro-oncologists believe patients should know about androgen deprivation therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients prescribed luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have significant misconceptions about treatment side effects and how to manage them. We surveyed a subset of Canadian physicians about what they think is important information to tell patients starting on ADT to determine the degree to which there is consensus of opinion. METHOD: A questionnaire about ADT side effects and management strategies was distributed to physicians-urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists - actively practicing within cancer and urology centers in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and the Maritime Provinces. RESULT: A total of 75 physicians filled out the survey. Physicians agreed that osteoporosis, erectile dysfunction, hot flashes, loss of libido, and loss of muscle mass were drug responses that were essential or important to warn patients about. However, for six commonly reported side effects (i.e. depression, diabetes, elevated cholesterol, anemia, delayed or absent orgasm, and genital shrinkage), physicians showed great variance, with less than 60% agreeing on whether to discuss these topics or not. CONCLUSION: There is little consensus among physicians regarding what to tell patients when prescribing this treatment. The lack of agreement among physicians may partially explain the lack of awareness of ADT side effects by patients and partners. The current findings may help guide strategies for the design, evaluation, and implementation of educational interventions for both physicians and patients that will better prepare patients to recognize, adapt to, and overcome ADT side effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".