Sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Sexual and gender diverse (SGD) cancer patients possess unique identities and needs that must be considered during their cancer care. This narrative review explores the current literature on sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship, in addition to providing recommendations encouraged by the current literature. RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a literature search for articles published in English between January 2021 and June 2022 in Medline ALL and Embase. Fifty-two studies were included in this review. The many identities encapsulated in 2SLGBTQIA+ (2 Spirited, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, Agender, Aromantic and all gender identities and sexual orientations that are not listed) communities each have their own unique backgrounds, needs and disparities in cancer care and survivorship. However, we also identified specific protective factors in the cancer experience of SGD patients such as reports of higher resiliency and stronger support networks. Much of the recent research features recommendations on improving cancer care by creating inclusive patient questionnaires, improving in-person and online resources, and educating healthcare providers and patient-facing staff on inclusive care. SUMMARY: SGD patients have their own specific challenges during and following their cancer care. As the research continues to grow, we gain a better understanding of the needs of these patients and future steps to take to improve SGD patients' cancer experience.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".