Perceptions of Curability in Outpatients with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. (1) To identify patient characteristics associated with the perception cancer is incurable. (2) To examine whether this perception is associated with (i) patients’ goals of care (GOC) and (ii) perceptions that their family and physician are aware of their future care wishes. Methods. Medical oncology outpatients with advanced cancer completed a GOC questionnaire. Results. Previous discussion of cancer curability was associated with the perception cancer was incurable when controlling for patient age, income, and ECOG (OR=4.35, 95%CI=1.18-17.11, p=0.03). Most patients perceiving cancer was incurable reported GOC wishes of living longer (56%) over curing their cancer (7%). A total of 77% believed their family was aware of their future care wishes, but only 13% believed their physician was aware. Conclusion. Discussion of cancer curability with patients may improve their understanding of prognosis and enable GOC decision-making. Physician-patient discussions about advance care planning appear to be lacking and should be encouraged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".