Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A qualitative study of patient experiences and implications for practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients being treated for bladder cancer share issues in common with other cancer patients, but also experience issues that are unique to their surgical treatment. This study used a descriptive qualitative approach to explore the experiences of patients who had undergone radical cystectomy for bladder cancer Twenty-two participants were interviewed in-depth on one occasion and were invited to attend a focus group session following the analysis of the interview transcripts. Participants described the shock of their diagnosis, their lack of information about bladder cancer, the importance of clear communication with care providers, and the types of adjustments they had to make following surgery. Specifically, changes in bodily function, body image, sexual relationships, and intimacy presented challenges for these participants. Although there was a sense of acceptance about the treatment-related events, there were still significant adjustments required by individuals following their surgery. Information, open communication, and support from family and friends were seen as important factors in helping patients adjust after surgery. Patients require clear, concise and consistent information about their cancer, treatment options, and course of care. Nurses caring for patients following surgery for bladder cancer need to understand the unique needs of these patients.
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.
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 it