Understanding and preferences for receiving prognostic information: A comparison of the views of Australian and Canadian patients with metastatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6014 Background: Previous research suggests that the majority of cancer patients desire full disclosure of their prognosis and treatment options. The current study compares the views of Australian (A) and Canadian (C) patients with metastatic cancer towards disclosure of prognostic information. Methods: Cross sectional studies were undertaken with A and C patients with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer to assess their preferences for and understanding of prognostic information. The primary outcome was patients’ preferences for the mode of delivery of prognostic information. Remaining analyses were primarily descriptive. Results: Survey response rate was A: 58% (n = 126) and C: 57% (n = 117). Patient mean age was 62.8yrs (A), 63.2yrs (C). 56% (A) and 39% (C) of patients were male. There were some differences in type of cancer: breast (25%A, 30%C), colorectal (18%A, 44%C), lung (10%A, 26%C) and other cancers (47%A). The main outcomes of the A and C surveys were very similar. The majority of all patients surveyed wanted to know prognostic information. Most patients preferred both words and numbers (46%A, 52%C), or words only (28%A, 31%C) for presenting prognostic information. Respondents were more likely to like words (66%A, 47%C), percentages (65%A, 45%C), or fractions (60%A, 47%C) for presenting prognostic information, than diagrams (37%A, 33%C), pie charts (42%A, 32%C) or graphs (33%A, 29%C). The majority of patients want to receive information on treatment goals and options when first given a metastatic diagnosis (84%A, 86%C). Fewer patients want to receive information on life expectancy at this time (59%A, 56%C) and only the minority want to discuss information about dying at this time (34%A, 36%C). Respondents indicated the specialist should just tell the patient (83%A, 74%C) rather than check first if the patient wants to know (15%A, 22%C). Conclusions: A and C patients have similar and strong preferences for receiving prognostic and treatment option information. However, more research is needed on the timing of delivery of this information. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".