MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P5-13-10: Recommendations to improve the lived experience of early stage and metastatic breast cancer patients in Canada

2019· article· en· W2918937810 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenn Gordon, C Ammendolea, Niya Chari, R Armstrong, Walter A. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCanadian Breast Cancer Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineMetastatic breast cancerCancerQuality of life (healthcare)Stage (stratigraphy)DiseaseFamily medicineOncologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In 2017, the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) undertook two surveys of Canadians who have experienced a breast cancer diagnosis to better understand the lived experience of patients and what opportunities exist to improve support for patients, survivors and their families and minimize the impact of this disease. There were 278 people diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, defined as stage I, II or III for the purpose of this report, and 180 people living with metastatic breast cancer, or stage IV breast cancer, who responded to these surveys. Results: The survey data shows that while patients feel supported and well cared for in certain aspects there are still significant opportunities for improvement. CBCN has identified five overarching factors that could greatly improve health outcomes and the quality of life of Canadians who experience a breast cancer diagnosis. 1. Improved Educational Resources: The quality and availability of patient education has increased over the past couple of decades; however, there are still some patient friendly educational resources including, specific resources for newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer patients; decision aids that support breast cancer surgery and post-surgery decisions; navigation of financial resources; treatment timelines and recovery expectations; private insurance navigation and information on dying-well. 2. Increased Access to Treatments: This challenge was specifically identified and vocalized by people living with metastatic breast cancer. Efforts need to continue to shorten the drug approval process time, increase equitable access to new medications for all Canadians, and ensure equitable access for take home oral cancer medications. 3. Increased Access to Information: Information available to patients about their health and treatment has increased; however, there is still information that isn't always communicated to patients that would help them make informed decisions about their health. This includes information about breast density, palliative care options and information around clinical trials. 4. Integrated Systemic Supports: The health care system as a whole is responsible for many of the services and supports that patients need to achieve optimal health and manage their breast cancer; however, these supports can be challenging to navigate and are sometimes lacking. Supports that need to be addressed at a systemic level include developing survivorship care plans for early stage patients, patient navigation, communication tools to support general practitioners during the diagnosis process, access to psychosocial professionals and increased Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits. 5. Increased Awareness and Understanding of Metastatic Breast Cancer: A lack of accurate statistics and overall awareness of metastatic breast cancer makes it challenging to truly understand the impact of this disease and also leaves people living with an incurable form of breast cancer feeling isolated and disconnected. Accurate statistics and increased awareness would help further the understanding of the impact of this stage of breast cancer and better support those with it. Citation Format: Gordon J, Ammendolea C, Chari N, Armstrong R, Hall W. Recommendations to improve the lived experience of early stage and metastatic breast cancer patients in Canada [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-10.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207