Polish High School Students’ Knowledge about Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer, as the second most common cause of death after cardiovascular diseases, is a global health problem. There is still an increasing number of cancer incidences and deaths. METHODS: The study was conducted as a part of the health promotion educational project concerning oncological education to develop the knowledge of cancer risk factors among high school students in Poland. A special questionnaire was filled out by students before the educational lesson on cancer conducted by medical students and young doctors. RESULTS: The study was carried out on 227 high school students (aged 17-18 years). Most students (67.5%) indicated that genetic predisposition is the most important cancer risk factor. Only about a quarter of students pointed to the relationship between lifestyle and cancer. Moreover, 41% of students admitted to smoking cigarettes. Most of them (80.6%) claimed that they can modify their own cancer risk. Almost all responders believed that early detected cancer is curable. CONCLUSIONS: High school students do not know about cancer risk factors and they do not relate cancer with lifestyle. Some students indicated bad lifestyle habits such as tobacco smoking. It is necessary to emphasize cancer prevention in early education, especially focusing on modification of lifestyle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".