Patient perception of risk factors in head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous study at our institution noted that only 15% of newly diagnosed patients with oral cancer could identify smoking or alcohol abuse as major risk factors for the development of their cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a simple educational intervention in 189 consecutively identified patients with head and neck malignancy. METHODS: Patients were interviewed prior to and immediately following reading a written educational pamphlet. The patients were then interviewed 5 weeks later to determine longer-term recall. Recall success was correlated to patient demographic parameters including level of education, occupation, sex, age, and place of residence. RESULTS: Immediate recall success increased, on average, 27% from preintervention knowledge, with the largest increase for the risk factor of alcohol abuse. Five-week postintervention recall success decreased on average 10.5% for all risk factors with the largest decrease being seen for smokeless tobacco use (12%). The immediate and 5-week recall success increases were both statistically significant when compared to the preintervention recall success (p < .05). Patient education level had the greatest impact on recall success at all time points (ANOVA, p < .001). Long-term recall for patients over the age of 60 was also statistically poorer. CONCLUSIONS: An educational intervention can have significant impact on patient knowledge of cancer risk. More effective educational interventions for poorly educated patients and the elderly may have to be devised to increase intervention success. Whether this knowledge translates into behavior change still needs to be studied.
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".