MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393965352 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2024.03.003

Fatigue in Prostate Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion and Thematic Literature Review

2024· article· en· W4393965352 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBayer CanadaBayer CorporationBayer
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineThematic analysisCancer-related fatigueHealth careCancerPsychologyQualitative researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Cancer and its treatments cause fatigue in up to 90% of men with advanced prostate cancer. As men with prostate cancer are surviving longer, cancer-related fatigue is becoming increasingly important for clinicians to understand and proactively manage. Objective: The aim of this work is to identify knowledge gaps that may support healthcare professionals to recommend personalised fatigue management strategies. Evidence acquisition: This manuscript is based on a roundtable discussion held during the European Association of Urology 2022 Annual Symposium, combined with a review of the literature. Five core themes were generated from the roundtable: (1) meaning of fatigue in prostate cancer patients, (2) impact of fatigue, (3) association between fatigue and treatment selection, (4) benefits of managing fatigue, and (5) barriers to exercise. Evidence synthesis: Cancer-related fatigue has complex underlying aetiology and is a subjective experience that may be under-reported. Some studies have shown that techniques such as education, cognitive behavioural therapy, guided imagery, and progressive muscle relaxation can result in clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue. However, the largest body of evidence, and a theme echoed in the roundtable discussions, was the benefit of exercise on fatigue. Despite the benefits of exercise, for some men, objective barriers to exercise exist and knowledge of benefits does not automatically translate into implementation and adherence. Conclusions: Understanding the specific health needs of individual patients and their desired health outcomes is essential to identify personalised strategies for minimising fatigue. As an outcome of the roundtable meeting, we developed a quick reference guide for healthcare providers. A high-resolution copy can be downloaded from https://patients.uroweb.org/library/fatigue-in-prostate-cancer-patients-guide/. Patient summary: This article is based on dialogue between a group of specialists, patients, and caregivers, which took place at a roundtable meeting during the European Association of Urology 2022 Annual Symposium. The group discussed how healthcare providers can best support their patients who experience fatigue. The group subsequently developed a guide to help healthcare providers during appointments.

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.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.325 · 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