Informational needs of brain metastases patients and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to a dearth of formal health information targeted towards patients with brain metastases and their caregivers, a formal informational and supportive care needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Brain metastases patients and caregivers who attended a clinic focused on the treatment of brain metastases at a tertiary medical center completed a self-report survey to assess informational needs across 6 domains: medical, physical, practical, social, emotional, and spiritual informational needs. Univariate and multivariate analyses of associations between variables was conducted using linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients and 77 caregivers participated. Patients and caregivers both prioritized medical and physical informational domains, with a large focus on symptoms and side-effect profiles, significance of brain metastases locations and their implications, available treatment options and their risks and benefits, prognoses and follow-ups if treatment is completed, and end-of-life experiences and supports. One-on-one counseling was preferred by both caregivers and patients for these domains, as well as for practical informational needs; while patients preferred pamphlets to address social, emotional and spiritual informational needs, caregivers preferred one-on-one counseling for the former two domains as well. CONCLUSIONS: Brain metastases patients and their caregivers prioritize medical and physical informational needs, with one-on-one counseling and pamphlets being the most preferred modalities for information provision. Further exploration regarding existing non-validated resources and the development of tailored resources to address the unique needs of these patient and caregiver populations are warranted.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".