MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411848299 · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102300

A patient co-led project to set care and research priorities for older adults with cancer

2025· article· en· W4411848299 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandeep Dhillon, Bonnie Leung, Schroder Sattar, Stuart Culbertson, Penelope Hedges, Daniel J. Renouf, Sabrina T. Wong, Lorelei Newton, Caroline Mariano, Kristen R. Haase

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of SaskatchewanBC Cancer AgencySpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCHealth Research
KeywordsMedicineCancerSet (abstract data type)Family medicineGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with cancer face unique challenges, including complex needs and systemic barriers to care. These factors affect their medical treatment decisions and overall quality of life, while caregivers face concurrent burdens. Building on a multi-phase, patient- and community-engaged project, this survey study aimed to validate and rank research and care priorities for older adults with cancer in British Columbia, Canada generated from our earlier work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with healthcare professionals, older adults with cancer, caregivers, and community members recruited from health and community organizations. Respondents completed a 19-item online survey with five open-ended questions. Respondents rated and ranked six care and six research priorities identified from our previous work. Quantitative analysis utilized descriptive statistics to assess the significance of priorities, while thematic analysis examined factors influencing respondents' prioritization and decision-making. RESULTS: Data from106 respondents were analyzed. Financial barriers (e.g., medication costs, transportation, housing) was identified as the top care priority, followed by continuity of care. The highest-ranked research priority was implementing geriatric assessment and co-management by interdisciplinary teams. Open-ended responses emphasized financial strain, the need for holistic and culturally competent care, and challenges older adults face navigating fragmented healthcare systems. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the need for integrated geriatric oncology services that address financial, cultural, and systemic barriers. These priorities provide a foundation for developing tailored interventions and policies to improve cancer care for older adults in Canada. Differences in rankings across groups have methodological implications for inclusive, patient and community-engaged research.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric OncologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207