Associations between Anxiety, Poor Prognosis, and Accurate Understanding of Scan Results among Advanced Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Routine imaging (“scan”) results contain key prognostic information for advanced cancer patients. Yet, little is known about how accurately patients understand this information, and whether psychological states relate to accurate understanding. Objective: To determine if patients' sadness and anxiety, as well as results showing poorer prognosis, are associated with patients' understanding of scan results. Design: Archival contrasts performed on multi-institutional cohort study data. Subjects: Advanced cancer patients whose disease progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen ( N = 94) and their clinicians ( N = 28) were recruited before an oncology appointment to discuss routine scan results. Measurements: In preappointment structured interviews, patients rated sadness and anxiety about their cancer. Following the appointment, patients and clinicians reported whether the imaging results discussed showed progressive, improved, or stable disease. Results: Overall, 68% of patients reported their imaging results accurately, as indicated by concordance with their clinician's rating. Accuracy was higher among patients whose results indicated improved (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.12, p = 0.02) or stable (AOR = 2.59, p = 0.04) disease compared with progressive disease. Patients with greater anxiety were less likely to report their imaging results accurately than those with less anxiety (AOR = 0.09, p = 0.003); in contrast, those with greater sadness were more likely to report their results accurately than those with less sadness (AOR = 5.23, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Advanced cancer patients with higher anxiety and those with disease progression may need more help understanding or accepting their scan results than others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".