The emotional impact of surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer on high‐risk individuals: A prospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Literature shows that emotional status can influence participation in screening/surveillance programs, and that screening/surveillance programs may alter the psychological well-being of subjects examined. This study aims to assess if participating in a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer early detection is associated with abnormal levels of psychological distress in high-risk individuals (HRIs), compared to the general population. METHODS: Fifty-four HRIs participating in a magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)-based surveillance program completed several psychological assessment questionnaires, investigating global functioning, self-efficacy, perceived stress, coping abilities, and social support. The questionnaires were administered by a clinical psychologist after the MRCP but before the subjects were informed about the results of the scans. The HRIs were subjects with strong familiarity of pancreatic cancer and/or carriers of known genetic mutations related to cancer susceptibility. The psychological assessment was made at the time of the first examination. RESULTS: The population was characterized by an overall good psychological status. Scoring of our sample was comparable to the general population norms. The HRIs showed decent global functioning, high self-efficacy levels, low perceived stress in the last month prior to examination, efficient emotion-focused coping strategies, and an adequate social support system. The younger subjects' subpopulation only revealed higher levels of stress. CONCLUSIONS: From a psychological point of view, an MRCP-based pancreatic cancer annual surveillance seemed not to influence the HRIs' psychological well-being, unless in young people. Further studies are needed to better establish if there are any changes in distress levels over time and how emotional status influences participation in surveillance programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".