Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature
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
In this paper, the authors engage in a critical analysis of the existing empirical literature which addresses the impact of ineffective communication between cancer patients and clinicians. It is increasingly accepted that communication plays a significant role in many aspects of the care experience, and that poor communication can have a significantly negative influence on the patient's psychosocial experience, symptom management, treatment decisions, and quality of life. However, scant attention has been given to the idea that poor communication may also have an economic impact worthy of attention. This area has not been the focus of systematic inquiry or substantive critical consideration. On the basis of critical analysis of the limited empirical evidence that exists across a wide range of studies in related areas, the authors propose that the existential and material costs associated with poor communication in cancer care may well be considerable, and conclude with a call to mobilize a heightened enthusiasm for addressing the research challenges in this field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it