MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2145936943 · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.37.7242

Art of Oncology: New Voices Wanted

2011· editorial· en· W2145936943 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David P. Steensma

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEmpathy and Medical Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineOncologyFamily medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In January 2000, Charles Loprinzi and former Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Editor-in-Chief George Canellos announced a new journal feature focused on end-of-life and symptom-directed clinical care. Since the inaugural Art of Oncology (AOO) essay about doing the right thing for dying patients, more than 200 authors have contributed AOO articles on a broad range of topics related to the joys, sorrows, rewards, and challenges of caring for people with cancer. In 2010, I succeeded Charles Loprinzi as the Consultant Editor responsible for the AOO section. During Loprinzi’s decade of judicious guidance, the AOO section thrived and became a valued component of JCO. New AOO essays are routinely among the most frequently viewed articles on the JCO Web site, the AOO section has consistently received favorable reviews in reader surveys, and authors commonly report receiving encouraging and thought-provoking comments about their published work. The first two Kindle eBooks of selected AOO pieces, Art of Oncology: Honest and Compassionate Responses to the Daily Struggles of People Living With Cancer, were released in May 2010 and June 2011; already, hundreds of copies have been sold, and additional volumes are planned. Why has the AOO section struck a chord with JCO readers? We have heard that the body of work published in the AOO section strengthens a sense of belonging to a community of professionals with common challenges and dilemmas. We as oncologists grope through a world of ambiguity together; it is reassuring for each of us to be reminded periodically that we are not alone. In addition, many AOO essays advocate both for those who suffer and for those who respond humanely and compassionately to suffering, while other papers tell engaging stories, remind us of virtues, or help define the standards and norms of our professional culture. By giving valuable journal space to these articles, JCO validates these topics as relevant to daily practice and to a life in medicine. The purpose originally envisioned for the AOO section was to provide a forum for discussing management of patients with advanced cancer—how to improve communication in difficult circumstances, how to make sound clinical decisions grounded in moral and ethical principles, and how to relieve the many burdensome symptoms resulting from cancer or its therapy in a timely and effective way. Such topics remain important to JCO and to the American Society of Clinical Oncology. For example, with the support and direction of our new Editor-in-Chief, Stephen A. Cannistra, JCO will publish a singlevolume special series within the next year, entitled, “Care of the Whole Patient With Cancer: The Science of Psychosocial Care,” which I am looking forward to coediting with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center psychiatrist Jimmie Holland and JCO Associate Editor Paul Jacobsen. Over time, however, the AOO section expanded in new directions and its mandate grew broader to include not just end-of-life and symptomatic care but all aspects of the cancer experience. In parallel, cancer care has changed in the past decade. We have learned to integrate supportive and palliative measures throughout the disease trajectory and have formally incorporated communication instruction into professional training programs. Meanwhile, the increasing emphasis on “personalized” medicine (although there has never been a time when medicine was not tailored to individual circumstance) is reflected in the growing heterogeneity of treatment approaches with accompanying new difficulties regarding therapeutic choices, treatment end points, and access to expensive yet effective care. In recognition of these and other changes, the AOO section’s former subtitle, “When the Tumor Is Not the Target” was dropped in 2009. Reducing the size of tumors was never really the primary target of the practice of oncology, and cancer medicine is no different from other areas of medicine in its goal to help patients live better and longer, regardless of the results of particular assays or imaging studies. During this evolution, the number of reflective, observational, and narrative AOO pieces has increased, whereas reviews and didactic essays have become less common. In my view, this is a welcome development, given that review articles have natural homes elsewhere in JCO. AOO has instead become a unique forum for narratives about what it is like to care for people with cancer or to be diagnosed with cancer, as well as for reflections on tragic, heartwarming, frustrating, or enlightening experiences in the oncology clinic. Particularly valuable are articles from physicians in training, including oncology fellows, who benefit from an uncluttered and fresh perspective, encountering for the first time what more seasoned clinicians have long learned to take for granted. The perceptions of these newest members of the profession can help rekindle our own senses of vocation. To ensure editorial consistency, AOO manuscripts are evaluated by a dedicated editorial board with diverse backgrounds and areas of specialization—current members include Gregory Kalemkarian (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), Timothy Moynihan (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN), Daniel Rayson (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada), Lidia Schapira (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA), and Charles von Gunten (San Diego Hospice, San Diego, CA)—supplemented by occasional reviews from topic experts. Together, the AOO editorial group looks for manuscripts that move, instruct, or advocate without being tedious or preachy, that give us new ideas about how to teach or how to practice, that have the potential to change JCO readers’ points of view, or that express clearly JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L S VOLUME 29 NUMBER 25 SEPTEMBER 1 2011

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,026
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,019
Communication savante0,0230,021
Science ouverte0,0020,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,024
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,009

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,142
Tête enseignante GPT0,524
Écart entre enseignants0,382 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical OncologyMême sujetEmpathy and Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207