Patient and Community Preferences for Outcomes in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".