Do patients consider preoperative chemoradiation for primary rectal cancer worthwhile?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to elicit future patients' preferences for preoperative chemoradiation (pre-CRT) for rectal cancer to determine whether patients' preferences are consistent with current treatment guidelines. METHODS: During a standardized interview, the treatment protocol, risks, benefits, and long-term outcomes associated with 1) surgery alone (SA) and 2) pre-CRT followed by surgery (CR + S) were described to healthy individuals, and a threshold task was performed. Each participant was asked which treatment option they would prefer when the risk of local recurrence was set initially at 15% for both options. If the participant indicated SA (which was expected), then the risk of local recurrence for CR + S was lowered systematically until the participant's preference changed from SA to CR + S. This threshold point represented the risk of local recurrence for pre-CRT that the participant would require before they would choose treatment with pre-CRT. RESULTS: Fifty individuals participated in the study, and the majority were well educated. Twenty-seven of 50 participants (54%) required a risk of local recurrence with CR + S of ≤ 5% (ie, equivalent to an absolute risk reduction ≥ 10%) before they would choose treatment with pre-CRT. Regression analysis did not identify any variables that were predictive of the participants' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Participants seemed to highly value functional outcomes and seemed willing to accept a higher risk of local recurrence to achieve this. Therefore, developers of future guidelines may need to downgrade the use of pre-CRT for all patients with stage II/III tumors from a guideline to an option.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".