How well do European patients understand cancer-associated thrombosis? A patient survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing concerns regarding the morbidity and mortality from cancer-associated thrombosis led the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), the voice of cancer patients across Europe, to create a pan-European cancer-associated awareness patient survey to assess cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) knowledge among a large population of patients with cancer. The ECPC survey represents the largest of its kind among patients/caregivers with CAT. It identified significant gaps in patient awareness and knowledge of CAT as well as a need for educational CAT-related discussions and interventions between healthcare professionals and patients with cancer and their caregivers. The aim of this paper is to highlight these gaps and to provide awareness of what/when information should be shared with patients/caregivers. Notably, the importance of providing information on how to reduce their risk of CAT, the role of anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment (short- and long-term) including possible side-effects, and finally how to identify CAT symptoms early. Here we outline what type of information should be provided, as well as when and how to best discuss CAT with our oncology patients and their caregivers along the cancer care continuum, to reduce the risk of CAT and associated complications with a goal of improving patient outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".