Longitudinal understanding of prognosis among adolescents with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite calls to increase prognosis communication for adolescents with cancer, limited research has examined their perceptions of prognosis as compared with their parents. We assessed adolescents' understanding of their prognosis relative to parents and oncologists. METHODS: Families of adolescents (aged 10-17) were recruited at two pediatric institutions following a new diagnosis or relapse. Seventy-four adolescents, 68 mothers, and 40 fathers participated at enrollment; 76 adolescents, 69 mothers, and 35 fathers participated one year later. The adolescent's primary oncologist reported on prognosis only at enrollment. Participants rated the likelihood of the adolescent's survival in five years, as well as reporting prognosis communication and sources of information. RESULTS: Most oncologists (65%) and fathers (63%) discussed prognosis in numerical terms with the adolescent at baseline, which was greater than mother report (49%) of discussions of numerical prognosis with adolescents. Adolescents reported a better prognosis than oncologists, but comparable with mothers at diagnosis and one year. Adolescents' prognosis estimates were stable over time (P > .05). At diagnosis, adolescent-father (P = 0.025) and adolescent-oncologist (P < 0.001) discrepancies were larger for youth with advanced than non-advanced cancer. Adolescents whose parents received numerical prognosis estimates from the oncologist, and whose fathers reported providing numerical prognosis estimates had more accurate understandings of prognosis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent prognosis estimates were comparable with those of parents at diagnosis and one year but more favorable than that of oncologists. Although additional research is needed, results suggest discrepancies in prognosis estimates between family members and oncologists, particularly for adolescents with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".