Patient's Awareness of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Canadian Nationwide Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Approximately 20% of patients with cancer will have cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT), which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite its clinical importance, CAT awareness in cancer patients and caregivers remains low. We sought to assess the patients' knowledge of CAT through a national survey.Materials And Methods A survey assessing knowledge of different aspects of CAT was developed by a steering committee including four clinicians with expertise in CAT and a patient partner with lived experience. Survey dissemination among patients with cancer occurred through the Environics network, the Thrombosis Canada member network, the Thrombosis Canada social media platforms, and was advertised through Instagram and Facebook, and the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network newsletter.Results Out of the 312 patients with cancer or survivors who responded to the survey, 179 (57.4%) were female, and 118 (37.8%) were over 65 years old. Overall, 119 patients (38.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.7-49.8%) reported having no knowledge of CAT. Only 84 (26.9%, 95% CI: 22.1-32.2%) and 94 (30.1%, 95% CI: 25.1-35.6%) patients reported receiving education about their underlying risk of CAT or education about signs and symptoms of venous thromboembolism, respectively. A total of 66 (21%, 95% CI: 16.8-26.1%) patients reported being informed by a health care professional about considering thromboprophylaxis. Patients were interested in learning more about the risk of CAT, its associated risk factors, and the benefits and potential side effects of thromboprophylaxis.Conclusion Many patients with cancer lack awareness or knowledge of CAT. Our results highlight ongoing education and awareness of the CAT burden.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".