Understanding why patients with immune thrombocytopenia are deeply divided on splenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Splenectomy is an effective treatment for chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP); however, patients' willingness to accept splenectomy is variable. OBJECTIVE: To explore why some ITP patients accepted splenectomy when recommended by their physician while others refused. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using one-to-one, in-depth patient interviews and a team-based approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 25 patients interviewed, 15 refused splenectomy and 10 accepted and were awaiting surgery. Themes about the influences on splenectomy decision making that emerged from patient interviews were (i) the perceived impact of ITP on quality of life, (ii) patients' view of splenectomy as a last resort treatment, (iii) patients' interpretations of the rates of treatment success and failure and (iv) a perceived lack of familiarity about ITP. Patients who accepted splenectomy perceived their disease as having a negative impact on their quality of life, whereas patients who refused felt their situation was not severe enough to warrant surgery. Patients developed their own experiential interpretations of the success rates of splenectomy quoted to them. A general lack of awareness of the clinical impact of ITP and its cause was identified by patients as barriers to choosing splenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' disease experience, perceptions of the lack of treatment alternatives, interpretations of treatment success and failure rates and a general lack of awareness about ITP influenced treatment choice. This study represents a first step towards contextualizing treatment decision making in ITP, focusing on patient preferences and values.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".