Patients' experiences of carcinoma of unknown primary site: dealing with uncertainty
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
UNLABELLED: It is generally acknowledged that patients may find it particularly hard to accept a cancer diagnosis if the primary origin cannot be identified. However, there is very little research exploring this. AIMS: This is an exploratory mixed-method, largely qualitative, pilot study to explore patients' understanding of carcinoma of unknown primary site, any concerns they may have and to assess their quality of life. METHODS: Ten patients were recruited and nine completed semi-structured interviews and McGill quality of life questionnaires. Thematic analysis was used in conjunction with demographic data and quality of life scores. RESULTS: Six main themes were identified. These were--poor understanding, struggling with uncertainty/contrasting with stoical acceptance, undergoing multiple investigations, inability to treat, healthcare professionals not having the answers and difficulty explaining to others. CONCLUSION: Many patients find the uncertainty difficult and would welcome more opportunity to ask questions and learn of others' experiences.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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