Advancing the Evidence Base and Transforming Cancer Care Through Interprofessional Collegiality: The Society for Integrative Oncology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) is pleased to support this seminal issue of JNCI Monographs devoted to integrative oncology and cancer survivorship. The SIO is an international professional society whose mission is to advance evidence-based, comprehensive integrative health care to improve the lives of people affected by cancer (www.integrativeonc.org). Since its founding in 2003 by pioneers in the field—Drs Barrie Cassileth, David Rosenthal, and Lorenzo Cohen—SIO has consistently encouraged rigorous scientific evaluation of both pre-clinical and clinical science, while advocating for the transformation of oncology care to integrate evidence-based complementary approaches. The vision of SIO is to have research inform the true integration of complementary modalities into oncology care, so that evidence-based complementary care is accessible and part of standard cancer care for all patients across the cancer continuum. As an interdisciplinary and interprofessional society, SIO is uniquely poised to lead the “bench to bedside” efforts in integrative cancer care. SIO members are comprised of a variety of professionals including, but not limited to, conventional cancer clinicians (ie, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and oncology nurses), family medicine providers, naturopathic doctors, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, mind–body therapists, nutritionists, patient advocates, and basic scientists. This diverse membership facilitates true clinical integration of complementary modalities because such change requires breadth of expertise and different perspectives, to listen and learn from one another while challenging each other’s assumptions and existing paradigms. Annual SIO conferences, cosponsored with major academic centers, provide an unparalleled interprofessional opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates to come together and advance integrative oncology research and best clinical practices. Health-care providers and patients alike are often searching for the next best treatment for cancer and ways to improve their quality of life in the midst of the challenges posed by disease or treatment side effects. Providers and patients wade through hundreds of articles and internet stories trying to find reliable information, which generally leaves them feeling overwhelmed and not sure what to believe. SIO’s commitment to research and knowledge translation has resulted in the development of three state-of-the-science papers and clinical guidelines. In 2009, the first article provided evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in complementary therapies with a focus on botanicals (1). Then the second article, published in 2013 in Chest, focused on integrative medicine in lung cancer (2). Finally, published in this monograph, SIO’s most recent guidelines focus on breast cancer survivorship and the use of integrative therapies in supportive care. This extensive research review and synthesis will be an invaluable resource to clinicians: to help them be well prepared to care for women with breast cancer, make appropriate referrals and recommendations, and answer breast cancer patients’ questions about the use of complementary therapies. In parallel, the guidelines will provide important information to women with breast cancer as they face decisions on whether and how to incorporate integrative therapies into their self-care.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».