MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412159580 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1607479

To treat or not to treat? Oncologists’ perceptions and experiences regarding overtreatment in end stage cancer patients

2025· article· en· W4412159580 on OpenAlexaff
Saritte Perlman, Aviad E. Raz, Pesach Shvartzman, Raphael Catane, Tamar Freud, Moriah Ellen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersIsrael National Institute for Health Policy Research
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)MedicineCancerIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryOncologyFamily medicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Aggressive care at end-of-life can harm quality of life without significantly improving survival. Despite best practice guidelines, research shows that oncologists continue to provide too much treatment to patients, especially at the end-of-life. Understanding the perceptions of oncologists regarding unnecessary care toward end-of-life can inform interventions and mitigate overuse. This study aimed to understand the perceptions and experiences of oncologists regarding why overuse of services is occurring for cancer patients at the end-of-life and elucidate factors which impede the implementation of best practices at the end-of-life in cancer. Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncologists in Israel. The interview guide was based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify beliefs about practices in caring for patients at the end-of-life and transitioning to palliative care. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Participants identified six major barriers and 12 major facilitators to reducing overuse at end-of-life. Barriers included patients seeking second opinions, patient and family fragility, pressure and demands from patients and families, a culture of valuing extending life, time constructs, and physicians' emotional regulation. Physicians reduce overuse by relying on experience, communication and relationship building skills, taking ownership over their roles, confidence in their abilities, belief and recognition of the importance of appropriate care, involving families and other healthcare professionals and easing into the process. Oncologist opinions vary based on role and geographical area of practice. Conclusion: Physicians can influence the rate of overuse as they guide patients at end-of-life. Findings can be utilized to help the health system in Israel reduce the overuse of unnecessary services at the end-of-life for cancer. Interventions such as palliative care referrals, multidisciplinary teams, and educational initiatives can help minimize overuse and improve quality of life for patients in their final days. Future research should incorporate views and perspectives of other stakeholders.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207