MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192996750 · doi:10.3390/curroncol28040263

“We’re on a Merry-Go-Round”: Reflections of Patients and Carers after Completing Treatment for Sarcoma

2021· article· en· W3192996750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rhys Weaver, Moira O’Connor, Richard Carey Smith, D.M. Sheppard, Georgia Halkett

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcomaMedicineThematic analysisQualitative researchQuality of life (healthcare)Social constructionismNursingPathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sarcoma is a rare cancer that has a significant impact on patients’ and carers’ quality of life. Despite this, there has been a paucity of research exploring the diverse experiences of patients and carers following sarcoma treatment. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ and carers’ reflections on life after treatment for sarcoma. A qualitative research design with a social constructionist epistemology was used. Participants included patients previously treated for sarcoma (n = 21) and family carers of patients treated for sarcoma (n = 16). Participants completed semi-structured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Three primary themes were identified: “This journey is never going to be over”, “But what happens when I am better?”, and finding a silver lining. Participants represented sarcoma as having a long-term, and sometimes indefinite, threat on their life that they had limited control over. Conclusions: This study highlight the heterogeneous and ongoing needs of sarcoma survivors and their families. Patients and carers strove to translate their experiences in a meaningful way, such as by improving outcomes for other people affected by sarcoma. Parental carers in particular attempted to protect the patient from the ongoing stress of managing the disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207