MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413856502 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdaf166.017

11 ONLINE SURVEY OF PATIENT EXPERIENCES RECEIVING GLIOMA DIAGNOSES

2025· article· en· W4413856502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kira Tosefsky, Yaron S.N. Butterfield, Ewen M. Harrison, Stephen Yip

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisGliomaMedicinePsychologyMedical physicsRadiologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Accounting for 80% of all primary brain cancers, gliomas are the most likely of all cancer types to be diagnosed during an emergency hospital admission following sudden symptom deterioration. This, coupled with the inherent complexity of histomolecular glioma classification, can exacerbate patient distress during the diagnostic period. Our patient-led survey project aimed to explore patient experiences receiving glioma diagnoses in an international cohort. METHODS Survey responses were collected from brain cancer patients and family members from January 2019 to March 2024 using an online form. Demographic and clinical information was collected in conjunction with responses to open-ended questions regarding patients’ emotional experiences. Sentiment, content, and thematic analyses of these responses were performed. RESULTS Fifty-four glioma patients (34, 63%) and/or family members (20, 37%) responded to the questionnaire. Fifty-six percent of the patients were female, with a median age at diagnosis of 40 (IQR: 29–52) years. Most respondents were from the USA (60%) or Canada (11%). The majority of diagnoses were of glioblastoma (46%) or grade 4 astrocytoma (26%). Prominent sentiments expressed surrounding receipt of the diagnosis included a sense of shock and loss of autonomy. Responses regarding interactions with the healthcare system received mixed sentiment scores, communicating both gratitude towards clinicians and frustration with the complexity of navigating multidisciplinary care. CONCLUSION Our results highlight opportunities to ease patient anxiety around the time of glioma diagnosis through clear communication between providers, patients and families, and between members of the healthcare team.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207