Psychosomatic services for melanoma patients in tertiary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with malignant melanoma face significant practical and psychological challenges, including existential fears and pain and discomfort associated with treatment. To enhance psychological adjustment, patients receive psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic consultation-liaison services (CLS) within the general medical hospital. However, little is known about the use of these services in routine clinical care. METHODS: This study includes all patients referred to the CLS of a large German tertiary care hospital between 2005 and 2008 (n=3658). Data were recorded using the CL-BaDo form - a multicenter documentation form for the assessment of clinical characteristics of patients and CLS delivery. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to compare patients with melanomas and patients with other dermatological diseases. RESULTS: Dermatologists requested CLS more often for other dermatology patients than for patients with melanoma. These two groups also differed in the reasons for referral: patients with melanoma were referred more often for acute coping issues; other dermatology patients were referred more often for unexplained physical symptoms. Additionally, the latter group was diagnosed with more and different mental and behavioral disorders. Patients with melanomas received more psychotherapeutic interventions while admitted to hospital but fewer recommendations for further psychosocial treatment after their hospital stay. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need for professional psychosocial support in individuals diagnosed with melanoma - especially when first diagnosed or experiencing a recurrence. Dermatologists play a crucial role in identifying their patients' needs and in navigating them toward available support services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".