Abstract P5-12-02: Tangled in the Breast Cancer Web: An Evaluation of the Usage of Web-based Information Resources by Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Increasingly cancer patients are researching web-based information to inform their clinical encounter with physicians. The use of the internet by breast cancer patients is incompletely characterized in the literature. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of the internet by breast cancer patients describing the way they search for, and the impact of, web-based information on the clinical encounter. Methods: From September 2011 to January 2012, breast cancer patients presenting at a tertiary cancer centre waiting to see their oncologist completed a written 23-question survey. Answers were closed and open-ended. Mixed-methods were used to interpret the quantitative and qualitative data. Results: 81 patients were approached and 56 completed the survey. Forty-five (80%) respondents used the internet and of those, 32 (71%) respondents searched for breast cancer information. Patients who searched for internet breast cancer information (users) were younger than those who did not use the internet (p = 0.01). All respondents used Google as their principal search engine and “breast cancer” was the most commonly used search term. Twenty (62%) users accessed sites from a reputable source and 19 (59%) users viewed top search engine hits. To evaluate quality, 15 (47%) users referred to website author credentials and 13 (41%) users examined references. All users sought information with respect to treatment and three-quarters sought information on prognosis. The internet influenced treatment decision making for 30 (66%) users. Twenty-six (80%) users felt the information increased their knowledge of breast cancer and it influenced treatment decision making for 16 (53%) patients. Conclusions: This study highlights search patterns and factors used by patients in seeking web-based breast cancer information. Physicians must appreciate that breast cancer patients use the internet for information and address discrepancies between the information sought and that which is available. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-12-02.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".