MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900645200 · doi:10.2196/10883

Exploring the Experiences of Cancer Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Ototoxicity: Qualitative Study Using Online Health Care Forums

2018· article· en· W2900645200 on OpenAlex
Stephanie Pearson, John Taylor, Derek J. Hoare, Poulam M. Patel, David Baguley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
KeywordsOtotoxicityTinnitusThematic analysisMedicineAudiologyQuality of life (healthcare)Hearing lossPopulationAudiologistHealth careFamily medicineIntensive care medicineQualitative researchPsychologyChemotherapyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients and survivors experience permanent and life-debilitating effects, such as ototoxicity, from treatment. Ototoxicity manifests as high-frequency hearing loss and tinnitus, which can have a detrimental effect on the quality of life (QoL) of those affected. Currently, there is little information and support offered to these patients who experience ototoxicity, potentially leading to many being undiagnosed and untreated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the extent of ototoxic side effects, such as hearing loss and tinnitus, and their impact on cancer patients following chemotherapy treatment. Secondary objectives included detecting the time periods of onset and duration of the ototoxicity and identifying what support was available to this population. METHODS: Posts from publicly available online forums were thematically analyzed using the guidelines by Braun and Clarke. A coding manual was iteratively developed to create a framework for the analysis of the ototoxicity experience among the cancer population. RESULTS: A total of 9 relevant online forums were identified, consisting of 86 threads and 570 posts from 377 members. Following the bottom-up thematic analysis, 6 major themes were identified: nature of ototoxicity, time of experienced ototoxicity, information on ototoxicity, quality of life, therapies, and online social support. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant number of reports expressing concerns about the lack of information on the risk of ototoxicity. More support for those suffering is needed; for example, improved interdepartmental communication between oncology and audiology services could optimize patient care. Patients should also be encouraged to communicate with their health care professionals about their ototoxicity and relay how their QoL is impacted by ototoxicity when accessing support. Tinnitus was the most common concern and was associated with distress. Hearing loss was less common; however, it was associated with fear and employment issues. Those who reported preexisting conditions were fearful about worsening their condition as their QoL was already impacted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.243 · 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