Infiltraciones de alcohol etílico en el tratamiento del neuroma de Morton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a psychosocial supportive intervention called the "Living with Hope Program" (LWHP) in increasing hope and quality of life for older adult, community-living, terminally ill cancer patients. Using a mixed method concurrent nested experimental design, 60 terminally ill cancer patients over the age of 60 years were randomly assigned to a treatment group and a control group. Baseline hope (Herth Hope Index [HHI]) and quality-of-life scores (McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire [MQOL]) were collected at the first visit in the patients' homes by trained research assistants. Those in the treatment group received the LWHP, which consisted of viewing an international award-winning video on hope and a choice of one of three hope activities to work on over a one-week period. The control group received standard care. Hope and quality-of-life data were collected one week later from both groups. Qualitative data using open-ended hope questions were collected from the treatment group. Patients receiving the LWHP had statistically significant higher hope (U=255, P=0.005) and quality-of-life scores at Visit 2 (U=294.5, P=0.027) than those in the control group. Qualitative data confirmed this finding, with the majority (61.5%) of patients in the treatment group reporting the LWHP increased their hope. This preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the LWHP suggests that it may increase hope and quality of life for older terminally ill cancer patients at home.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".