MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146869122 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-0705

Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes at 1- and 2-Year Follow-up of Cancer Survivors Accrued via Self-Referral versus Cancer Registry in the FRESH START Diet and Exercise Trial

2008· article· en· W2146869122 on OpenAlexaff
Denise C. Snyder, Richard Sloane, David F. Lobach, Isaac M. Lipkus, Bercedis L. Peterson, William E. Kraus, Wendy Demark‐Wahnefried

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsImmunovaccine (Canada)
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsReferralCancerBaseline (sea)MedicinePhysical therapyCancer registryCancer survivorRandomized controlled trialGerontologyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participant accrual to research studies is a challenge; oftentimes, advertisements are used to supplement cases ascertained through clinic caseloads and cancer registries. It is unknown, however, if cases ascertained through these two sources differ. In this study, we compared self-referred (n = 209) and registry-ascertained (n = 334) participants enrolled in FRESH START, a randomized controlled trial promoting a healthy diet and increased exercise among breast and prostate cancer survivors. The two groups were compared on baseline characteristics, adherence, attrition, and outcomes by study arm. Compared with participants enrolled from registries, self-referrals were significantly younger (54.1 +/- 10.4 versus 58.7 +/- 10.7 years), more likely to have later-stage disease and to have received chemotherapy (40% versus 19%), and more likely to report "fighting spirit" coping styles (50% versus 30%), lower quality-of-life (88.2 +/- 15.1 versus 92.0 +/- 12.9), fewer comorbid conditions (1.87 +/- 1.60 versus 2.24 +/- 1.78), and lower consumption of five or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables (35% versus 45%; P values <0.05). Although no differences in behavior change were observed between self-referred and registry-ascertained cases assigned to the tailored intervention arm, this was not the case within the attention control arm. Among those who received the attention control intervention of standardized materials in the public domain, self-referred versus registry-ascertained participants showed significantly greater increases in exercise at 1-year follow-up and significantly greater increases in fruit and vegetable consumption at both 1- and 2-year follow-up (P values <0.05). Several differences exist between self-referred and registry-ascertained participants, including motivation to respond to standardized educational materials, which appears significantly greater in self-referred populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207