An Exploratory Survey of Nurses' Perceptions of Phase I Clinical Trials in Pediatric Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study suggests that nurses' perceptions of pediatric oncology phase I clinical trials are diverse and mixed but are more likely to be positive than negative. Improving future treatments, medical benefit, improved quality of life, and hope were cited as potential benefits of phase I clinical trials, but nurses felt that families were hoping for a cure. Toxicities, false hope, and decreased quality of life were perceived as potential negative outcomes. Acting as a patient advocate was viewed as the most important nursing role, and providing information was identified to be the most important purpose of informed consent. Although not statistically significant, data suggest that age, experience, and practice setting may influence nurses' perceptions. Younger or less experienced nurses were more likely to report either positive or negative perceptions, whereas older or more experienced nurses expressed mixed or moderate perceptions. Inpatient nurses reported more negative perceptions compared with outpatient nurses. The respondents report that caring for patients on phase I had both positive and negative effects on their quality of nursing work life.
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 | 0.096 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".