2013 President's plenary international psycho‐oncology society: embracing the IPOS standards as a means of enhancing comprehensive cancer care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The second President's Plenary at the 2013 International Psycho-oncology Society's World Congress in Rotterdam, the Netherlands aimed to progress and, where needed, initiate changes to achieve comprehensive cancer care. Recent initiatives have been driven by the need to see psychosocial care as an integrated part of holistic multidisciplinary quality cancer care. The President's Plenary session covered the need for the following: An internationally agreed standard of quality cancer care, which includes psychosocial care for patients and their families and caregivers. An endorsement to assess distress as the 6th vital sign. Psycho-oncology professionals to integrate into a federation promoting better national and international outcomes. CONCLUSION: This overview highlights progress in terms of enhanced communication between and within different professionals groups supporting the implementation of a model of comprehensive patient care that is inclusive of psychosocial support and screening for distress. Tasks and challenges for the future are set out but the primary message is of the importance of collaboration in order to achieve recognition that psychosocial care is integrated into comprehensive cancer care; in this way, patient, family and carer needs can be more appropriately met.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".