MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890477736 · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2018.07.007

Evaluation of an Online Education Resource on Radiation Therapy Created for Patients with Postprostatectomy Prostate Cancer and Their Caregivers

2018· article· en· W2890477736 on OpenAlexaff
Katija Bonin, Merrylee McGuffin, Eli Lechtman, Aaron Cumal, Tamara Harth, Eirena Calabrese, Deb Feldman‐Stewart, J. Dale Burnett, Janet Ellis, Lisa Di Prospero, Ewa Szumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyProstate cancerMedicineRadiation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Resource (disambiguation)Intensive care medicineCancerMedical physicsInternal medicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy (RT) after prostatectomy is an important curative treatment option for patients with prostate cancer. It can be delivered immediately after surgery as adjuvant treatment, or after biochemical PSA failure as salvage treatment. There is currently a lack of consensus regarding whether salvage RT in the event of biochemical failure or immediate adjuvant RT is the optimal postprostatectomy RT treatment. Although both types of postprostatectomy RT are generally well tolerated, patients may develop some toxicity that can impact their quality of life and the duration and frequency of treatments can be challenging for patients. It is imperative that patients be provided with evidence-based information so that they are able to make a treatment decision most aligned with their values. METHODS: To help address patients' informational needs, an online education resource was created for patients with prostate cancer considering postoperative RT. Patients and their families were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of this resource using a validated purpose-based information assessment. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were approached and 14 participated, but only five patients returned their evaluations (35%). Sixty percent found the information to be important with regards to each of the six commonly identified purposes in the purpose-based information assessment: organizing, understanding, decision-making, planning, emotional support, and discussing. Only one participant found the information hard to understand and had difficulty finding specific information. DISCUSSION: Patients should be encouraged to actively participate in their treatment decision-making process involving postprostatectomy RT. For patients to make well-informed decisions, patients must be provided with clear and accessible information so that they may understand their disease and the treatment options. CONCLUSION: An online education resource has been developed that most study respondents found clear and helpful for a variety of identified purposes. Overall, this online education resource has the potential to reach a large number of patients and their caregivers who desire specific information and involvement in future treatment decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciencesSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207