Comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered prostate biopsy report in clinical prostate cancer practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
145 Background: The prostate biopsy pathology report is a critical decision-making document for men newly-diagnosed with prostate cancer, yet the content may be beyond the health literacy of most patients. We compare the effectiveness of a patient-centered prostate biopsy report developed through patient-centered outcomes research methods with standard synoptic reports. Methods: Using a modified Delphi approach, a multidisciplinary group of prostate cancer experts provided consensus for the critical components of a prostate biopsy report for treatment decision-making. Patient focus groups provided input for syntax and formatting to inform the design of a patient-centered pathology report. 94 patients with recent prostate biopsies were block randomized to receive the standard report with or without the patient-centered report. We evaluated patient self-efficacy, provider communication and empathy, and prostate cancer knowledge at pathology disclosure. We compared study groups with descriptive statistics. Results: Experts selected primary and secondary Gleason score and number of positive cores as the important elements of a prostate biopsy report. Patients prioritized a narrative word structure, clear language, a tabular format for histologic grade, and information on risk classification. Initial assessments were completed by 84% (79/94) of participants including 40/46 in the standard report group and 39/48 in the patient-centered report group. Patients who received the patient-centered report had significantly improved ability to recall their Gleason score (100% vs. 85%, p = 0.03) and number of positive cores (90% vs. 65%, p = 0.01). Provider communication and patient self-efficacy were uniformly high and did not differ between groups. 88% of patients who received the patient-centered report felt that it helped them better understand their pathology results. Conclusions: A patient-centered prostate biopsy pathology report is associated with significantly higher knowledge about a new prostate cancer diagnosis. These health information documents may help facilitate shared decision-making among patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.
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 | 0.072 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".