Knowledge about prostate cancer and screening among men attending Kibogora Level Two Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Globally, prostate cancer ranks as one of the primary causes of cancer-related mortality for men. Prostate cancer death rates in sub-Saharan Africa are 2.7 times higher than the global norm. Delayed detection of the disease is one of the factors that contributes to this high mortality. Currently, little is known about how Rwandan men perceive, know about, and approach prostate cancer screening. Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the level of awareness about prostate cancer and screening among men attending Kibogora Level Two Teaching in Rwanda. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a convenience sample of male patients showing symptoms of urinary tract infections or prostate cancer. The survey included questions about demographic characteristics, and prostate cancer risks, signs and symptoms, and screening. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify frequencies in responses. Results: A total of 164 men completed the survey. Most men were farmers (88.0%) with 67.1% having primary level education. About a third were between 41 and 50 yeas of age. Only 38.4% had heard of prostate cancer. Participants identified obesity (62.2%), smoking (58.5%), and exposure to agent orange (55.5%) most frequently as risk factors and 31.1% named difficulty urinating most frequently as a symptom of prostate cancer. Other symptoms mentioned were blood in the urine (20.7%) and erectile dysfunction (18.3%). Only five men indicated they had ever been screened for prostate cancer. Conclusion: The study revealed this sample of Rwandan men had a low level of awareness and knowledge about prostate cancer and very few had engaged in prostate cancer screening. The results support the need for public education about the disease and screening approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".