MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The McGill Cancer Nutrition and Rehabilitation Program

2009· article· en· W14257684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Chasen, Margaret Eades, Marta Jelowicki, Senda Amdouni, Rahul Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerRehabilitationPhysical therapyBreast cancerNauseaAnorexiaDepression (economics)Colorectal cancerLung cancerPsychological interventionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9623 Background: Cancer rehabilitation is a process that assists the individual with cancer to obtain optimal physical, social, psychological, and vocational functioning within the limits created by the disease and treatment. The McGill Cancer Nutrition and Rehabilitation (CNR) program developed as a result of the ever-increasing demand to address the individual cancer patients and their needs, as well as on achieving optimal tumour-related outcomes. Methods: To assess the effect of an interdisciplinary 8-week rehabilitation program on the functional outcomes of patients with advanced cancer. Sixty-five patients were assessed prior to and following an 8-week interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation program consisting of medical, nursing, physiotherapy and nutritional interventions. All patients were evaluated with the Edmonton Symptom assessment Score (ESAS), Distress thermometer (DT), Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), Simmonds Functional Assessment Tool and the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). A paired t-test comparing patient’ pre and posttest scores was used. Results: Thirty three male and 32 female participants were enrolled. Their median age was 57 years (25 to 80). Their cancer diagnoses were: gastro-esophageal (20%), hepatobiliary (19%), breast (17%), hematological (12%), lung, ENT and sarcoma (9% each), colorectal (3%) and CNS lymphoma (2%) There was a significant improvement after an 8-week cancer rehabilitation program in strength (p=. 02), appetite (p< 0.001), nausea (p< =0.02), nervousness (p< 0.001) sleepiness (p=0.01), shortness of breath (p=0.02), depression (p< 0.001), DT (p< 0.001), total PG-SGA score (p< 0.001) and 6MWT (p=0.001). Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest that participation in a cancer rehabilitation program ameliorates symptoms and global distress resulting in an increase in physical activities. We can conclude that participation in the Cancer Rehabilitation Program is beneficial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.423 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→