Risk Perception and Psychological Morbidity in Men at Elevated Risk for Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As prostate-specific antigen (psa) makes prostate cancer (pca) screening more accessible, more men are being identified with conditions that indicate high risk for developing pca, such as elevated psa and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (hgpin). In the present study, we assessed psychological well-being and risk perception in individuals with those high-risk conditions. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of a psychological symptom survey, a trait risk-aversion survey, and a cancer-specific risk perception survey was administered to 168 patients with early-stage localized pca and 69 patients at high risk for pca (n = 16 hgpin, n = 53 psa > 4 ng/mL). Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in psychological well-being and appraisal of risk between the groups. RESULTS: Compared with the pca group, the high-risk group perceived their risk of dying from something other than pca to be significantly lower (p = 0.007). However, pca patients reported significantly more clinically important psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of prostate conditions that predict progression to cancer might not result in the psychological symptoms commonly experienced by pca patients, but does appear to be related to a distorted perception of the disease's mortal risk. Patients with pca experience reduced psychological well-being, but better understand the risks of pca recurrence and death. Education on the risks and outcomes of pca can help at-risk men to view health assessments with reduced worry.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".