The experiences of men receiving androgen deprivation treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study was intended to investigate men's ways of integrating and understanding experiences with Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT), including how hormone treatment affected their sense of identity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve men, averaging 61 years of age and treated with ADT, participated in a single interview about their experiences with prostate cancer and hormone treatment. In keeping with a qualitative approach, questions were initially open-ended, with patients encouraged to describe experiences in their own words. RESULTS: Seven prominent themes appeared in the interviews: 1) starting on hormones, 2) matching expectations with reality, 3) tracking changes, 4) dealing with changes in sexuality, 5) navigating relationships, 6) putting things in context, and 7) interpreting gender-relevant changes. CONCLUSION: The effects of ADT on men with prostate cancer were varied and often substantial in their impact. Additionally, men often receive insufficient information to prepare them to deal with side effects. While the physiological situation of the men in our study could be described as "liminal" (i.e., straddled between two categories of gender), interview data showed that they refuse their liminality, claiming to be neither less masculine nor more feminine because of treatment. While men are grateful to receive potentially life-extending treatment, the challenge for the health care system is to provide them with the information and clinical support that will make their remaining years the best that they can be.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".