Stigma in Early-Stage Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phenomenon of lung cancer stigma has been firmly established in the literature. However, studies have predominantly focused on patients with advanced disease, whose experiences may differ from patients with earlier stage, surgically resectable lung cancer and an improved prognosis. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to examine the stigma experienced in a Canadian population with early-stage, resectable lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were enrolled at a tertiary thoracic surgery clinic. The 25-item Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI) was self-administered by patients to quantitatively measure experiences of lung cancer stigma. LCSI results informed the development of a semi-structured focus group and individual interviews. RESULTS: Of the 53 participants completing the survey, 38 (72%) met established LCSI score threshold, indicating a clinically meaningful level of stigma. No significant relationship was found between total LCSI scores and any demographic variable. Analysis of qualitative data revealed multiple themes related to experiences of lung cancer stigma. The major themes were classified into four categories: impact of the association between lung cancer and smoking, societal attitudes and assumptions, personal choices in relation to diagnosis, and experiences related to care. CONCLUSIONS: A surgical population of patients with predominantly early-stage lung cancer experienced lung cancer stigma at a high incidence and a level similar to previously studied populations with more advanced disease. The qualitative results support the quantitative findings that respondents experienced more internal stigma than either perceived stigma from others or constrained disclosure related to their diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".