MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient and Community Preferences for Outcomes in Prostate Cancer

2003· article· en· W2325586243 on OpenAlex
Murray Krahn, Paul Ritvo, Jane Irvine, George Tomlinson, Karen E. Bremner, Andrea Bezjak, John Trachtenberg, Gary Naglie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerQuality of life (healthcare)GynecologyProstatectomySexual dysfunctionHealth Utilities IndexCancerUrinary incontinencePhysical therapyInternal medicineUrologyHealth related quality of lifeDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preferences, or utilities, for health outcomes are central in prostate cancer decision-making. Utilities can be elicited directly from patients using standard techniques, or indirectly, using questionnaires that incorporate preference weights from community members. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate directly elicited and indirectly elicited (questionnaire-derived, community-weighted) utilities for prostate cancer outcomes and the effects of sexual, urinary, and bowel dysfunction on them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilities for the current health of 141 prostate cancer patients, recruited from ambulatory clinics, were elicited directly with the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale, rating scale (PORPUS-U(RS)) and standard gamble (PORPUS-U(SG)) subscales. Patients completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI) and Quality of Well Being Scale (QWB), utility instruments incorporating community preferences, and the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index. RESULTS: Patients' treatments included radical prostatectomy (18%), radiation (60%), and hormonal (42%). Mean utility scores for current health were 0.65 (QWB), 0.79 (PORPUS-U(RS)), 0.80 (HUI), 0.86 (PORPUS-U(SG)). Utility decrements for dysfunction were small (0.08-0.14 [sexual], 0.06 to 0.13 [urinary], and 0.01 to 0.13 [bowel]), and even smaller when adjusted for concomitant changes in other quality of life (QOL) domains. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' directly elicited utilities for their own health were higher than community-derived utilities obtained from HUI and QWB administration to the same patients. HUI scores of these patients were similar to those of age-matched Canadian men. Sexual, urinary, and bowel problems were common but had less impact on overall QOL than reported in previous utility studies. These results weaken the argument that prostate cancer screening and treatment should be limited because of severe and debilitative side effects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.240 · 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