MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975557431 · doi:10.1188/12.cjon.497-503

Nutrition Education for Osteoporosis Prevention in Men With Prostate Cancer Initiating Androgen Deprivation Therapy

2012· review· en· W1975557431 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Millar, Joyce Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical journal of oncology nursing · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyOsteoporosisProstate cancerPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineVitamin D and neurologyPhysical therapyOncologyCancerInternal medicineGynecologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis is a common side effect of treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate cancer. ADT may prolong survival; however, deterioration of bone mass density occurs soon after initiation. A systematic review of current literature revealed the importance of adequate nutrition during treatment with ADT to reduce the risk of osteoporosis. More specifically, this literature stressed achieving adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D through a combination of supplements and food. The necessity of providing nutrition education to patients with prostate cancer at initiation of ADT was identified. Healthcare professionals, including nurses, oncologists, and dietitians, can be instrumental in identifying patients with prostate cancer initiating ADT who are at risk for osteoporosis. Research on nutrition and lifestyle modification interventions to maintain bone health and reduce fracture risk for patients initiating ADT is limited. Additional research is required to develop and evaluate nutrition education interventions that will reduce the risk and prevent osteoporosis in men on ADT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical journal of oncology nursingSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207