MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2954563397 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2019-3288

Abstract 3288: Ovarian cancer survivors' views of factors that influenced their exceptional survival: A qualitative study

2019· article· en· W2954563397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aliya Alimujiang, Lilah Khoja, Ashley Wiensch, Malcolm C. Pike, Penelope M. Webb, Anne Chase, Jean L. Richardson, Celeste Leigh Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupMedicineGerontologyOvarian cancerGrounded theoryQualitative researchCancerStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseSurvivorship curveOncologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Although most women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) die within five years, approximately 15% will survive for 10 or more years. The factors contributing to this exceptional survival are currently unknown, but are thought to be a complex interaction between clinical, genetic, immunologic, and lifestyle factors. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore factors that may influence exceptional ovarian cancer survival. Methodological Approach Four focus groups, one each in Los Angeles (California), Ann Arbor (Michigan), New York (New York) and Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), were conducted. Women previously diagnosed with HGSC who have survived 5 or more years were invited to participate. Physical activity, diet, meditation, prayer, treatment, integrative medicine, and side effects were explored in the semi-structured focus group interviews. All four sessions were audiotaped and transcribed. The transcriptions were coded by two individuals using grounded theory. The coded transcripts were analyzed using Dedoose. Findings Of the 26 women who participated, 24 were diagnosed with HGSC. Two women, one with a stage III, low-grade mucinous tumor and another with a MMMT carcinosarcoma, did not meet our inclusion criteria, but were not asked to leave. Among the 24 women with HGSC, 19 have survived 10 or more years, two 8-9 years and three 5-7 years; all but one woman had stage III or IV disease. Three overarching themes were uncovered: (a) Survivors were highly motivated to improve lifestyle factors, including but not limited to fitness and diet, and had, in fact, done so; (b) Survivors had a strong life purpose, which manifested as positivity, taking charge, and self-advocacy; and (c) Survivors were able to draw on strong support systems, which included family, friends, support groups, faith, and healthcare workers. Conclusion HGSC long-term survivors have varying experiences with their cancer, but share motivation and persistence, strong life purpose, and strong support systems. This study sheds light on how the specific behaviors and attitudes of patients may contribute to their long-term survival with HGSC. Focus groups are preparatory to further prospective studies that will determine whether short term and long term survivors differ on these characteristics. Our results highlight the need for more research to gain better understanding of the role that life purpose and support systems play in survival with HGSC. Citation Format: Aliya Alimujiang, Lilah Khoja, Ashley Wiensch, Malcolm C. Pike, Penelope Webb, Anne Chase, Jean Richardson, Celeste Leigh Pearce. Ovarian cancer survivors' views of factors that influenced their exceptional survival: A qualitative study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3288.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→