MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294539333 · doi:10.3166/pson-2022-0203

Communicating about Sexual Problems

2022· article· en· W4294539333 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationHuman sexualitySituatedPerceptionMedicinePsychologyCancerHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)NursingFamily medicineInternet privacyCommunicationInternal medicineComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual side effects of cancer treatment are common and, unfortunately, often not discussed with patients and their partner. This may be due to personal factors of the health care provider, fear of offending the patient or lack of knowledge, time constraints, and perception of the importance to the patient based on age and severity of the cancer. Despite the barriers to communication about a sensitive topic, oncology care providers are well situated to initiate the conversation. This article will identify key issues related to communication about sexuality by oncology care providers with individuals with the most common kinds of cancer. Models for assessing sexuality in these patients are presented to facilitate communication about this important aspect of quality of life that is impacted by cancer treatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologieSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207