Psychosocial aspects of quality of life outcomes in post-treatment human papillomavirus-associated cancer survivors in the United States: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers (oropharyngeal, cervical, vulvar, vaginal, anorectal, and penile cancers) have previously been reported to have favorable survival outcomes making patients' quality of life (QoL) an important consideration for clinicians. This scoping review examined the literature on the post-treatment psychosocial QoL outcomes in patients HPV-associated cancers in the United States. The final set of 57 articles were comprised of patients that predominantly identified as Non-Hispanic White, females, or those with cervical or gynecologic cancers. Physical and psychological QoL were the most studied domains. Qualitative studies demonstrated salient themes including low health literacy on HPV-associated cancers, decreased sexual well-being, and increased feelings of stress and fear. Future work is needed in understanding psychosocial QoL in non-gynecologic HPV-associated cancers among individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, male patients, and those of lower socioeconomic status. Additionally, cancer-related stigma is relatively understudied among patients with HPV-associated cancers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".