Financial toxicity in patients followed for branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: the risk that arises from “too much” for nothing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No data exist about financial toxicity (FT) for branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs). METHODS: This prospective study analyzed patients with BD-IPMNs from 2023 to 2024. Demographics, clinical data of interest, and radiological and endoscopic information were recorded for each patient. The "Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity" (COST) patient-reported outcome measure was used to assess financial toxicity (FT). Lower COST values indicate greater FT. A multilevel, multivariate mixed-effects model was employed. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients were interviewed during routine outpatient follow-up visits. Eighty patients agreed to complete the survey (68.9 %). The COST score was 18 (15-21, IQR), showing a fairly normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk p = 0.054). The older the age at diagnosis, the greater the perception of FT (p < 0.001). As educational status increased, the FT burden also increased (-1.4 ± 0.6; p = 0.047). Private/self-employed patients (-3.7 ± 1.3; p = 0.004) and unemployed patients (-2.3 ± 1.0; p = 0.016) reported a higher perception of FT compared to pensioners or publicly employed individuals. WFs increase FT (-1.9 ± 0.8; p = 0.014). The longer the follow-up duration, the greater the FT (-0.3 ± 0.1; p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: FT can be seen in the BD-IPMN population. The patient's perspective must be taken into account during follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".