ArticleMedicine international
Artificial intelligence and patient narratives: A novel approach to assessing hope in patients with cancer.
Article in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of patient-generated text and its interpretation by artificial intelligence (AI) as a valid correlate of hope levels in patients with cancer. For this purpose, four medical centers recruited consecutive patients with cancer and the patients were administered a questionnaire to collect data on patient characteristics and a shortened version of the Adult Trait Hope Scale (s-ATHS). Additionally, all participants provided written text on their hope levels, which was then analyzed by a deep neural network model. AI predicted hope labels, as well as numerous patient, disease and center features which were then associated with the scores from s-ATHS using univariate and multivariate gamma regression analyses. The present study comprised 461 patients with cancer, 194 (42.1%) of whom had metastatic disease. Multivariate gamma regression analysis identified three variables independently associated with hope index scores (s-ATHS): Treatment center (B=-0.09, Wald=4.77, P=0.029), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (B=-0.09, Wald=47.41, P<0.001) and AI-predicted hope level (B=0.06, Wald=44.24, P<0.001). The results revealed that cases from one of the centers in the present study, a university hospital located in a different city than the other centers, exhibited higher hope levels. Additionally, a poorer ECOG performance status and lower AI-predicted hope levels were associated with reduced hope index scores (s-ATHS). On the whole, the present study demonstrates that AI-predicted hope levels are associated with hope index scores (s-ATHS), suggesting that monitoring AI-predicted hope levels may provide valuable insight in the practice of oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.