From symptom to cancer diagnosis: Perspectives of patients and family members in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant intervals from the identification of suspicious symptoms to a definitive diagnosis of cancer are common. Streamlining pathways to diagnosis may increase survival, quality of life post-treatment, and patient experience. Discussions of pathways to diagnosis from the perspective of patients and family members are crucial to advancing cancer diagnosis. AIM: To examine the perspectives of a group of patients with cancer and family members in Alberta, Canada, on factors associated with timelines to diagnosis and overall experience. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients with cancer (n = 18) and patient relatives (n = 5) were conducted and subjected to a thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Participants struggled emotionally in the diagnostic period. Relevant to their experience were: potentially avoidable delays, concerns about health status, and misunderstood investigation process. Participants emphasized the importance of their active involvement in the care process, and had unmet supportive care needs. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial supports available to potential cancer patients and their families are minimal, and may be important for improved experiences before diagnosis. Access to other patients' lived experiences with the diagnostic process and with cancer, and an enhanced supportive role of family doctors might help improve experiences for patients and families in the interval before receiving a diagnosis of cancer, which may have a significant impact on wellbeing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".