The language of prostate cancer treatments and implications for informed decision making by patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that cancer patients lack knowledge about treatments particularly for reproductive system cancers. Focusing on prostate cancer, we explored how the language used to describe treatments and their side effects is understood by both men and women. Since the language around prostate cancer is often euphemised to reduce distress and stigma, our aim was to elucidate how language (e.g. hormone therapy vs. androgen deprivation therapy) affects both patients' and partners' attitudes towards treatment decision making. We surveyed 690 male and female cancer patients and non-patients through an online questionnaire. A large proportion of participants did not understand the terminology used to describe prostate cancer treatments. Most did not know that the terms 'chemical castration', 'hormonal therapy' and 'androgen deprivation' are synonymous. Male respondents stated that they would more readily agree to hormonal therapy than to castration to treat prostate cancer and felt significantly more strongly than women about how androgen deprivation therapy, described in various terms, affected masculinity. Men and women differed substantially in their opinion about the impact of androgen deprivation. For patients and partners to make informed decisions and cope effectively with treatment side effects, it is important that healthcare practitioners provide accurate information using language that is unambiguous.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".