Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Survey of the Understanding of Their Illness and Expectations from Palliative Radiotherapy for Symptomatic Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a pilot study to examine patients' understanding of their illness and their expectations for palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic metastases. Participants were asked to complete a survey consisting of seven questions prior to the initial consultation. Demographic details and information on extent of disease were collected. Patients were asked to score their symptom distress using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Sixty patients participated in the pilot study between January and April 1999. Their median age was 68 years (range 46-90). The most common primary tumours were lung, prostate and breast. Twenty-one patients (35%) believed that their cancer was curable. Twelve (20%) expected that palliative radiotherapy would cure their advanced cancer and 23 (38%) believed that palliative radiotherapy would prolong their lives. Twenty-one patients (35%) had concerns about the effectiveness of radiation therapy and twenty (33%) had concerns about the side-effects of radiotherapy. Fifty-two (87%) were not familiar with the concept of radiation treatment. Forty-seven patients (78%) reported that they were not given information about the radiation treatment; 51 (85%) were not satisfied with the information that their own doctors had provided regarding radiation treatment prior to the consultation at our clinic. A significant proportion of the patients in this pilot study had misconceptions regarding their illness and unrealistic expectations from palliative radiotherapy. We plan to provide educational pamphlets for use in referring doctors' surgeries and clinics in order to inform patients of the nature, rationale and anticipated benefits and side-effects of palliative radiotherapy.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".