Patient-Centered Insights on Treatment Decision Making and Living with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Hematologic Cancers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expectations relating to treatment and survival, and factors influencing treatment decisions are not well understood in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia. This study analyzed combined findings from a targeted literature review with patient-reported information shared on YouTube to further understand patient perspectives in hematologic cancers and, in particular, acute myeloid leukemia. The targeted literature review included articles concerning patient (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences or perspectives in acute myeloid leukemia or other hematologic cancers. YouTube video selection criteria included patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with self-reported acute myeloid leukemia. In total, 26 articles (13 acute myeloid leukemia-specific and 14 other hematologic cancers, with one relevant to both populations) and 28 videos pertaining to ten unique patients/caregivers were identified. Key concepts reported by patients included the perceived value of survival for achieving personal and/or life milestones, the emotional/psychological distress of their diagnosis, and the uncertainties about life expectancy/prognosis. Effective therapies that could potentially delay progression and extend life were of great importance to patients; however, these were considered in terms of quality-of-life impact and disruption to daily life. Many patients expressed concerns regarding the lack of treatment options, the possibility of side effects, and how their diagnosis and treatment would affect relationships, daily lives, and ability to complete certain tasks. Both data sources yielded valuable and rich information on the patient experience and perceptions of hematologic cancers, in particular for acute myeloid leukemia, and its treatments. Further understanding of these insights could aid discussions between clinicians, patients, and their caregivers regarding treatment decisions, highlight outcomes of importance to patients in clinical studies, and ultimately, inform patient-focused drug development and evaluation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it