MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969907804 · doi:10.3747/co.v15i0.276

An Integrated Support and Information Centre in a Large U.K. Cancer Centre Established in 1993 and Replicated in More Than 60 Units Across the United Kingdom and Australia

2008· article· en· W1969907804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E.J. Maher

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAlternative medicineModalitiesPatient EmpowermentCancerIntegrative medicineFamily medicineCancer treatmentEmpowermentAdverse effectHealth carePharmacologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various surveys show that interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is high among cancer patients. Patients want to explore all options that may help their treatment. Many CAM modalities offer patients an active role in their self-care, and the resulting sense of empowerment is very appealing. On the other hand, many unscrupulous marketeers promote alternative cancer "cures," targeting cancer patients who are particularly vulnerable. Some alternative therapies can hurt patients by delaying effective treatment or by causing adverse effects or detrimental interactions with other medications. It is not in the best interest of cancer patients if they cannot get appropriate guidance on the use of CAM from the health care professionals who are part of their cancer care team. The Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York was established in 1999 to address patient interest in cam, to incorporate helpful complementary therapies into each patient's overall treatment management, to guide patients in avoiding harmful alternative therapies, and to develop prospective research to evaluate the efficacy of CAM modalities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.011

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207