Patient perceptions about potential side effects and benefits from chemotherapy agents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6595 Background: Little is known about how breast cancer patients (pts) perceive the relative side effects and benefits of different chemotherapy (CT) agents. The objective of this study was to better understand these preferences in pts receiving CT at a Canadian cancer center. Methods: Pts completed a Web survey. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of 9 common CT side effects were assigned preferences by: conjoint and standard gamble (SG). Conjoint involved making trade-offs among different risks of side effects, yielding preferences (utilities) for each side effect. SG involved choosing to stay in a selected side effect state or taking a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1-p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent of the side effect. Pts were also asked to rate how much of detriment in quality of life they would endure for benefits in survival. Results: 102 women participated, mean age 54 + 11, stage 1 (21%), 2 (24%), 3 (38%) and 4 (18%). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and mucositis made the most difference. SG preferences for side effects were lowest (i.e. least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea (0.624) followed by diarrhea (0.633), hand-foot syndrome (0.681), and highest for grade I/II sensory neuropathy (0.757), mucositis (0.756), and myalgia (0.750). Agree/disagree items revealed patients are willing to endure quality of life detriments for improvement in survival; this willingness increased as disease stage increased (p=0.01). Conclusions: Relatively small changes in the risks of some CT side effects may have substantial impacts on pt treatment preferences. Nevertheless, pts will endure significant toxicity for a potential gain in survival. The standard gamble utilities from this population may also be used to quality-adjust life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".