Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer survivorship is increasing. However, life-saving treatments often leave people with physical, cognitive and emotional sequelae that contribute to activity and participation limitations. The purpose of this review is to summarize current evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions to address problems during survivorship. METHOD: Best evidence synthesis. The review took as its starting point a systematic review of patient needs and supportive care interventions following cancer treatment. The study team identified the needs which could be addressed by rehabilitation and suggested others not originally included. Then they built on the earlier review's conclusions regarding effective intervention through extraction of results from subsequent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of potential rehabilitation interventions was reviewed for physical functioning, fatigue, pain, sexual functioning, cognitive functioning, depression, employment, nutrition and participation. With the exception of physical rehabilitation interventions following breast cancer, this literature tends to focus on psychoeducational interventions, which have demonstrated limited effectiveness for rehabilitation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the knowledge available regarding potential rehabilitation interventions comes from psychosocial oncology literature. While there are limitations, this literature provides an excellent starting point to examine the potential effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions within cancer survivorship programs. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Good evidence exists for the use of exercise/physical rehabilitation in reducing fatigue after treatment for most cancers, and improving upper extremity functioning following treatment for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence exists in a number of areas that may be improved by rehabilitation interventions, such as pain, sexual functioning, cognitive functioning and return to work, but further research is needed. No intervention studies addressing participation limitations were identified. Rehabilitation professionals are encouraged to take the lead in exploring participation limitations among cancer survivors and developing suitable interventions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it