Randomized controlled trials of non-medical and non-surgical therapies for palliative care: a literature review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of non-medical and non-surgical therapies for palliative care was undertaken to provide guidance for best practice palliative care. Nine databases were searched (ERIC, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AHMED, Psychinfo, HealthStar, Sociological Abstracts, and the Cochrane Library, including Central and Systematic Reviews) for RCTs and systematic reviews. Fifteen RCTs, varied in intervention and outcome measures, were identified. Several studies found positive results but the sample sizes were small, the methodological quality of the RCTs did not meet Cochrane Collaboration criteria, and the conclusions were at high risk of bias. Improved planning of the protocols and execution, with the addition of experienced trialists and statisticians, is required to improve the quality of the evidence collected in future studies.
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 | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".