Knowledge, attitude and practices of non-oncologist physicians regarding cancer and palliative care: a multi-center study from Pakistan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major cause of disease burden in Pakistan, so that knowledge of physicians about all aspects should be adequate, especially for palliative care for end stage management, given the generally late stage presentation. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted in three tertiary care hospitals and areas of general practice in Pakistan. RESULTS: A total of 236 non-oncologist physicians were assessed. Most of them claimed to have cared for cancer patients in someway and considered that cancer treatment is often long and protracted. However, one-third were unaware of the fact that cancer is a major disease burden in our society. About half of them thought that chemotherapy makes patients miserable. Oncology as a practice was considered financially of low reward by about a quarter. Most physicians, including consultants, were unaware of the term hospice. Many did not know where to refer cases of cancer and about the commonest cancers in Pakistani males. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness about cancer and palliative care among primary physicians needs to be improved for cancer prevention and control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".