MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380730771 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8417

Poster Session 9: Oncology - Prostate (Part 2)

2023· article· en· W4380730771 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Editor CUAJ

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResearch Nova ScotiaPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreDalhousie UniversityDalhousie Medical Research FoundationMcMaster UniversitySchool of Medicine, Duke UniversityUniversity of WashingtonSyracuse UniversityBayer
KeywordsSession (web analytics)ProstateMedicineMedical physicsOncologyInternal medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer among Canadian men.Active forms of treatment, such as radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and hormonal therapy, are effective but can also result in physical and mental side effects, including urinary issues, sexual and intimacy problems, pain, depression, and anxiety.There is a paucity of education and empowerment interventions that address the needs of prostate cancer survivors.Existing interventions often lack the qualitative evidence needed for uptake into standard of care.In this study, we report the qualitative assessments of patients' perception of a 28-day, online, Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) aimed at patient education to decrease mental distress and improve quality of life and well-being through healthy lifestyle habits.Methods: Thirty prostate cancer patients from Halifax, Canada participated in the 28-day PC-PEP intervention in 2019.PC-PEP provided daily patient education and empowerment videos, prescribed strength and aerobic exercise, pelvic floor training, plant-based diet, stress reduction, intimacy education, social connection, and support.Quantitative exit surveys and semi-structured focus group interviews assessed perceived facilitating and impeding factors to program's adherence.Results: The program received high endorsement from patients (9.6/10) and was reported as extremely useful (9/10) (Tables 1 and 2).Patients reported that the online format of the program made it easy to adhere to and that the program helped to address emotional distress and fragility; communication and openness regarding their cancer; physical fitness; urinary incontinence; and patient autonomy.Patient-reported challenges included commitment to work and the inability to complete program requirements while at work.Conclusions: The 28-day PC-PEP developed through patient engagement was successful at promoting mental and physical health.Patient endorsement of PC-PEP supports integration into standard of care from day one of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4530.230

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→