Survey of Policies and Guidelines on Antioxidant Use for Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Survivorship in North American Cancer Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care policies and guidelines that are clear and consistent with research evidence are important for maximizing clinical outcomes. To determine whether cancer centers in Canada and the United States had policies and/or guidelines about antioxidant use, and whether policies were aligned with the evidence base, we reviewed current research evidence in the field, and we undertook a survey of the policies and guidelines on antioxidant use at cancer institutions across North America. METHODS: A survey of policies and guidelines on antioxidant use and the development and communication of the policies and guidelines was conducted by contacting cancer institutions in North America. We also conducted a Website search for each institution to explore any online resources. RESULTS: Policies and guidelines on antioxidant use were collected from 78 cancer institutions. Few cancer institutions had policies (5%) but most provided guidelines (69%). Antioxidants from diet were generally encouraged at cancer institutions, consistent with the current research evidence. In contrast, specific antioxidant supplements were generally not recommended at cancer institutions. Policies and guidelines were developed using evidence-based methods (53%), by consulting another source (35%), or through discussions/conference (26%), and communicated mainly through online resources (65%) or written handouts (42%). For cancer institutions that had no policy or guideline on antioxidants, lack of information and lack of time were the most frequently cited reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Policies and guidelines on antioxidants from diet were largely consistent with the research evidence. Policies and guidelines on antioxidant supplements during treatment were generally more restrictive than the research evidence might suggest, perhaps due to the specificity of results and the inability to generalize findings across antioxidants, adding to the complexity of their optimal and safe use. Improved communication of comprehensive research evidence to cancer institutions may aid in the development of more evidence-based policies and guidelines.
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 | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".