Website Visitors Asking Questions Online to Lung Cancer Specialists: What Do They Want To Know?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Dutch Lung Cancer Information Centre (Longkanker Informatie Centrum) launched a website containing information on lung cancer accessible to anyone. OBJECTIVE: Our study aim was to inventorize the information needs of the visitors of this website by analyzing the questions they asked the lung cancer specialists in the websites interactive section "Ask the Physician". METHODS: The first 2000 questions posted up until May 2006 have been classified by visitors' wish, type of required information, identity, gender, and phase during treatment course. RESULTS: Our results show that 1893 (1158/1893, 61%) of the questions were asked by a loved one/caregiver and (239/1893 13%) by patients. 1 out of 3 questions was asked by a daughter/grand-daughter. Most questions concerned specific information on lung cancer and lung cancer course (817/1893, 43%). The most inquired specific information topics were therapy side effects, diagnostics, general information on lung cancer, and regular therapy. Furthermore, questioners wanted to verify their own doctor's information (122/1893, 6%), a diagnosis (267/1893, 14%), and a prognosis (204/1893, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patients and their caregivers asked the most questions in the interactive website section. The most frequently requested information was more detailed information. These include specific information on lung cancer (regular therapy, diagnostics, and disease symptoms), verification of what the doctor has said, diagnosis, and prognosis. Most of the requested information could have been obtained from treating specialists, indicating that current information supply to lung cancer patients and their caregivers may not be matching their needs sufficiently. The further implementation of an online dialogue with lung cancer specialists might be a solution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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; 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".