From Fear to Adaptation: The Journey of Patients with Liver Cancer Living with the Fear of Cancer Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to understand how patients with liver cancer experience and adapt to the fear of cancer recurrence, providing insights into psychological processes and strategies that can inform psycho-oncology research and interventions. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 patients with liver cancer from December 2019 to February 2020 and analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. Four theme clusters emerged: (1) "Inevitable reality of recurrence," which highlighted the acceptance of recurrence; (2) "Amplified fears," which reflected heightened emotional distress; (3) "Changes in daily life driven by fear," which illustrated lifestyle changes driven by uncertainty; and (4) "Living with fear," which described adaptive strategies and resilience. The findings highlight the need for targeted psycho-oncological approaches to address the fear of cancer recurrence in patients with liver cancer, supporting the development of resilience and enhancing their overall quality of life. Further research is essential to design tailored strategies that reduce psychological distress and promote long-term survivorship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".