MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392828201 · doi:10.1089/thy.2023.0634

Decision Regret Following the Choice of Surgery or Active Surveillance for Small, Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4392828201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna M. Sawka, Sangeet Ghai, Lorne Rotstein, Jonathan C. Irish, Jesse D. Pasternak, Eric Monteiro, Janet Chung, Afshan Zahedi, Jie Su, Wei Xu, Jennifer M. Jones, Amiram Gafni, Nancy N. Baxter, David P. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioTrillium Health CentreMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretMedicineProspective cohort studyQuality of life (healthcare)CohortSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is important to understand cancer survivors' perceptions about their treatment decisions and quality of life. Methods: We performed a prospective observational cohort study of Canadian patients with small (<2 cm) low-risk papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) who were offered the choice of active surveillance (AS) or surgery ( Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03271892). Participants completed a questionnaire one year after their treatment decision. The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared the mean decision regret scale total score between patients who chose AS or surgery. A secondary analysis examined one-year decision regret score according to treatment status. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, mood, fear of disease progression, and body image perception. We adjusted for age, sex, and follow-up duration in linear regression analyses. Results: The overall questionnaire response rate was 95.5% (191/200). The initial treatment choices of respondents were AS 79.1% (151/191) and surgery 20.9% (40/191). The mean age was 53 years (standard deviation [SD] 15 years) and 77% (147/191) were females. In the AS group, 7.3% (11/151) of patients crossed over to definitive treatment (two for disease progression) before the time of questionnaire completion. The mean level of decision regret did not differ significantly between patients who chose AS (mean 22.4, SD 13.9) or surgery (mean 20.9, SD 12.2) in crude ( p = 0.730) or adjusted ( p = 0.29) analyses. However, the adjusted level of decision regret was significantly higher in patients who initially chose AS and crossed over to surgery (beta coefficient 10.1 [confidence interval; CI 1.3–18.9], p = 0.02), compared with those remaining under AS. In secondary adjusted analyses, respondents who chose surgery reported that symptoms related to their cancer or its treatment interfered with life to a greater extent than those who chose AS ( p = 0.02), but there were no significant group differences in the levels of depression, anxiety, fear of disease progression, or overall body image perception. Conclusions: In this study of patients with small, low-risk PTC, the mean level of decision regret pertaining to the initial disease management choice was relatively low after one year and it did not differ significantly for respondents who chose AS or 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 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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThyroidSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207