MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177928014 · doi:10.1200/op.21.00474

Values of Retinoblastoma Survivors and Parents Regarding Treatment Outcomes: A Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W3177928014 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Janić, Ajoy Vincent, Jennifer Stinson, Helen Dimaras

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinoblastomaFocus groupPsychosocialQualitative researchMedicineCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Retinoblastoma is an aggressive pediatric eye cancer. Patient-reported outcome measures reveal important insights into how patients perceive their own health. Currently, there is no widely used or validated measure for assessment of retinoblastoma outcomes. The purpose of this research was to uncover which treatment outcomes that retinoblastoma survivors and their parents value, to inform the development of a future measure. METHODS: This qualitative, cross-sectional study included retinoblastoma survivors age 6 years and older and parents of retinoblastoma survivors. Participants who did not demonstrate fluency in English were excluded. Study participants participated in semistructured interviews or focus groups, either in person at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, or through secure videoconference, between March 3, 2019, and January 25, 2020. Iterative rounds of opening coding, codebook development, and coresearcher analysis were used to identify key emergent themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Seventeen adults participated in six focus groups. Nine pediatric survivors participated in individual interviews. Four common themes emerged from all participant groups: (1) definition of treatment success, (2) enucleation-acceptance and challenges, (3) treatment outcomes to measure, and (4) need for outcome reporting. An additional, unique theme was identified in all pediatric discussions: worries and coping mechanisms. Treatment outcomes deemed valuable were related to the following domains: psychosocial outcomes, daily functioning, functional vision, retinoblastoma education, cosmetic outcomes, and secondary eye conditions. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first stage in the development of a retinoblastoma-specific patient-reported outcome measure. The findings reveal insight into what outcomes are valued by survivors after treatment and offer promise to improve outcomes assessment for retinoblastoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207