Patients with cancer often felt a need to conceal their distress to protect family, friends, and doctors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Byrne A, Ellershaw J, Holcombe C, et al. Patients’ experience of cancer: evidence of the role of ‘fighting’ in collusive clinical communication. Patient Educ Couns2002 ; 48 : 15 –21 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do patients respond to having cancer? Qualitative study. Hospital clinics and a day care at an associated hospice in the UK. 30 patients who were 37–88 years of age (median age 55 y, 60% women, 100% white). Patients had cancer of the breast (n=11), lung (n=4), bowel/anus (n=6), larynx/tonsil/neck (n=3), cervix (n=2), kidney/liver (n=2), and prostate (n=1). 1 patient had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The time since treatment was ≤7 days for 4 patients, <1 year for 14 patients, and 1–19 years for 12 patients. 14 patients received curative treatment and 16 palliative treatment. Patients were individually interviewed for 30–180 minutes (mean 65 min) about their experience of cancer. Open questions, prompts, and reflection were used to help patients describe personal changes and their experiences of others. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. An inductive thematic analysis was done. (1) … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPatient%2Beducation%2Band%2Bcounseling%26rft.stitle%253DPatient%2BEduc%2BCouns%26rft.aulast%253DByrne%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D48%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D15%26rft.epage%253D21%26rft.atitle%253DPatients%2527%2Bexperience%2Bof%2Bcancer%253A%2Bevidence%2Bof%2Bthe%2Brole%2Bof%2B%2527fighting%2527%2Bin%2Bcollusive%2Bclinical%2Bcommunication.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0738-3991%252802%252900094-0%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12220746%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00094-0&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12220746&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F95.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178953400003&link_type=ISI
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".