Cardio-Oncology Awareness: A multidisciplinary survey amongst health care trainees and practicing professionals at academic institutions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e24023 Background: The awareness of cancer therapy-related adverse cardiac effects is incited by recent literature on cardiotoxicity incidence and detection strategies. Despite availability of guidelines, cardiotoxicity monitoring and treatment are not structurally performed across institutions. Aim: Assessing knowledge of health care professionals’ cardiac complications of cancer treatments, current perspectives on cardio-oncology ultimately to determine an agenda for improvements in practice. Methods: A web-based survey (Google Forms) was adapted from that of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s survey, consisting of 45 questions organized into 7 sections, modified according to our local needs and circulated to cardiologists, oncologists (radiation, medical) practicing or training in a multi-disciplinary setup and academic centers. Fortnightly reminders were sent for to receive a maximum response. The survey enquired about implementing respondent’s perception of cardio-oncology, availability of cardio-oncology services at the respondent’s institution, opinions towards current practice. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out. Results: Fifty-five professionals completed the survey, of which 12 were cardiologists, 31 radiation oncologists, and 12 medical oncologists. Majority, 31 (54.5%) were trainees and only 1.8% had some formal training in cardio-oncology while 20% respondents reported to have a formal cardio-oncology training programme. Nearly 90% understood cardio-oncology as a stream to be able to identify side-effects and refer for treatment to the cardiologists while 84% felt that timely referral would improve outcomes.72% recognized follow-up and 67.3% felt patient education to be important component. Awareness of cardio-oncology guidelines was reported by 38.2% respondents. In the setting of metastatic cancer, there was a difference in risk tolerance for cardiotoxicity with the majority accepting 1-5% risk in curative setting and 56% accepting > 5% risk of cardiotoxicity in the metastatic setting. None of the institutions reported on having a formal training programme. Limited infrastructure (54.5%) and limited interest (47.3%) were cited the most common reasons. Conclusions: This survey identified that professionals recognize cardio-oncology services to be an important component of cancer treatment. Lack of formal training and awareness about guidelines was reported. There is a felt need for collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists to improve cardiovascular outcomes of cancer patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".