AB193. 40. The information needs of patients with breast cancer at years one, three & five post diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Five-year survival for patients post diagnosis with invasive breast cancer is 83%. Information needs of patients around the time of diagnosis have been studied extensively but little is known about patients’ information needs longer term. The aim of this study was to assess the information needs of patients greater than 1-year post diagnosis. Methods: One hundred & five patients presenting for follow-up appointments at a tertiary referral breast cancer centre between July and September 2017 were recruited for this study. Each patient completed the Toronto Information Needs Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC) as well as a basic demographics questionnaire. Data was also collected from their health records regarding treatment & disease status. Patients who were attending follow-up at years one, three and five post diagnosis were chosen for inclusion in the study. Results: Of the 105 patients studied, 23, 38 and 44 were attending 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up respectively. The overall median score on the TINQ-BC was 4.15; on the 5-point Likert scale 4 being very important and 5 extremely important. There was no difference in mean scores at 1, 3 and 5 years. There was no difference in mean scores analysed according to age or disease stage at diagnosis. Conclusions: The information needs of patients with breast cancer are high throughout the follow-up period post-diagnosis with most patients rating need for information on breast cancer as somewhat or extremely important to them. In an era of prolonged survival, managing long-term information needs of breast cancer patients is an important consideration.
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".