Cited by 29Cancer survivorship and careSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

The Patient-Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration (PRIME) framework for investigating emotions and other factors of prostate cancer patients with low intermediate risk based on online cancer support group discussions

Bandaragoda, Tharindu, Ranasinghe, Weranja, Adikari, Achini, de Silva, Daswin, Lawrentschuk, Nathan, Alahakoon, Damminda, Persad, Raj, Bolton, Damien·2018·Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

Background This study aimed to use the Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration (PRIME) framework, a novel ensemble of machine-learning and deep-learning algorithms, to extract, analyze, and correlate self-reported information from Online Cancer Support Groups (OCSG) by patients (and partners of patients) with low intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and active surveillance (AS), and to investigate its efficacy in quality-of-life (QoL) and emotion measures. Methods From patient-reported information on 10 OCSG, the PRIME framework automatically filtered and extracted conversations on low intermediate-risk PCa with active user participation. Side effects as well as emotional and QoL outcomes for 6084 patients were analyzed. Results Side-effect profiles differed between the methods analyzed, with men after RP having more urinary and sexual side effects and men after EBRT having more bowel symptoms. Key findings from the analysis of emotional expressions showed that PCa patients younger than 40 years expressed significantly high positive and negative emotions compared with other age groups, that partners of patients expressed more negative emotions than the patients, and that selected cohorts ( 70 years, partners of patients) have frequently used the same terms to express their emotions, which is indicative of QoL issues specific to those cohorts. Conclusion Despite recent advances in pa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1245/s10434-018-6372-2

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bandaragoda, T., Ranasinghe, W., Adikari, A., de Silva, D., Lawrentschuk, N., Alahakoon, D., Persad, R., & Bolton, D.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Austin Hospital (AU)
  • North Bristol NHS Trust (GB)
Venue
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2018-02-21
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
1737-1745
ISSN
  • 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-4681
OpenAlex
W2793389659
Cited by
29
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 7
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
prostate cancer, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer, patient emotions, quality of life, radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, active surveillance, bowel symptoms, patient partners, young men
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Algorithms, Emotions, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Radiotherapy, Risk Factors, Self-Help Groups, Spouses, Internet, Self Report, Watchful Waiting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review