Exploring patient perceptions of PSA screening for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the beliefs of a group of Canadian men regarding the risks, effectiveness, and importance of routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing when used as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Design A 1-page questionnaire designed to gauge patient beliefs about PSA screening. Setting Two primary care clinics in Kingston, Ont. Participants Seventy-two men aged 41 to 80. Main outcome measures Whether men believed that the PSA blood test was not risky when used as a screening test for prostate cancer, was effective at preventing death from prostate cancer, and was important for their health. Results Fifteen men reported having visited their physicians because of difficulty urinating in the past 2 years, or a personal history of prostate cancer, and were excluded; for these men, the use of the PSA blood test would not be for screening. Of the 57 men considered in the study, 54 (95%) believed that using the PSA blood test as a screening tool for prostate cancer was not risky, 39 (68%) believed that the PSA blood test was good or very good at preventing death from prostate cancer, and 45 (79%) believed that the routine use of the PSA blood test was important or very important for their health. Men in the suggested screening age group of 51 to 70 years (n = 32) had an equally positive impression of PSA screening. Conclusion Despite a limited body of evidence showing its effectiveness, Canadian men continue to have a favourable impression of PSA screening and remain largely unaware of potential adverse events associated with PSA testing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".