MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388291808 · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2023.2269303

Predictors of preparedness for recovery following colorectal cancer surgery: a latent class trajectory analysis

2023· article· en· W4388291808 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Sawatzky, Cecilia Larsdotter, Monica Pettersson, Elisabeth Kenne Sarenmalm, Frida Smith, Jonas Nygren, Lara B. Russell, Joakim Öhlén

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
FundersCentrum fÖr Personcentrerad VårdGöteborgs UniversitetCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineLatent class modelPreparednessColorectal cancerLongitudinal studyHealth careCancerInternal medicinePathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: With an interest in providing knowledge for person-centred care, our overall goal is to contribute a greater understanding of diversity among patients in terms of their preparedness before and up to six months after colorectal cancer surgery. Our aim was to describe and provide a tentative explanation for differences in preparedness trajectory profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was explorative and used prospective longitudinal data from a previously published intervention study evaluating person-centred information and communication. The project was conducted at three hospitals in Sweden. Patient-reported outcomes measures, including the Longitudinal Preparedness for Colorectal Cancer Surgery Questionnaire, were collected before surgery, at discharge, and four to six weeks, three months, and six months after surgery. Clinical data were retrospectively obtained from patients' medical records. We used latent class growth models (LCGMs) to identify latent classes that distinguish subgroups of patients who represent different preparedness trajectory profiles. To determine the most plausible number of latent classes, we considered statistical information about model fit and clinical practice relevance. We used multivariable regression models to identify variables that explain the latent classes. RESULTS: = 488) comprised people with a mean age of 68 years (SD = 11) of which 44% were women. Regarding diagnoses, 60% had colon cancer and 40% rectal cancer. The LCGMs identified six latent classes with different preparedness for surgery and recovery trajectories. The latent classes were predominantly explained by differences in age, sex, physical classification based on comorbidities, treatment hospital, global health status, distress, and sense of coherence (comprehensibility and meaningfulness). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the received view that emphasizes standardized care practices, our results point to the need for adding person-centred and tailored approaches that consider individual differences in how patients are prepared before and during the recovery period related to colorectal cancer surgery.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207