The quality, suitability, content and readability of online health‐related information regarding sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Patients are not well informed about sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery and often turn to the Internet for information. The purpose of this study was to assess online information for patients on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: An online search of Google, Yahoo and Bing was performed using specific (e.g., rectal cancer surgery and vaginal pain) and general (e.g., rectal cancer surgery and sex) search terms. Inclusion criteria were websites in English, designed for patients, and including content regarding sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. Websites were assessed for readability (nine standardized tests), quality (DISCERN tool), suitability (Suitability Assessment of Materials tool), and content. RESULTS: Of 5040 websites identified, 99 unique websites met inclusion criteria. Three (3%) websites fulfilled the American Medical Association recommendation of a 6th-grade reading level. Using the DISCERN instrument, two (2%) websites were assigned good/excellent quality, nineteen (19%) referenced their sources of information, and thirty-one (31%) fully discussed the impact of sexual dysfunction on quality of life. Using the SAM instrument, three (3%) websites were classified as highly suitable for rectal cancer patients, sixty-five (66%) were adequate, and thirty-one (31%) were inadequate. With regards to content, nine (9%) websites fully discussed the impact of sexual dysfunction on patients partners and fifty-one (52%) websites did not cover prognosis. CONCLUSION: Online health information available to patients on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is suboptimal. Websites are not suitable, lack important content, and are written at too complex a reading level for patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".