Exploring patient experiences and self-initiated strategies for living with cancer-related fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue is one of the most prevalent and distressing side effects of cancer for patients. It threatens quality of life and can interfere with daily living. Systematic approaches for assessing and intervening are recommended for implementation in many cancer centres. Prior to implementing a formal fatigue program, this study was conducted to explore what cancer patients do to cope with fatigue on their own. In-depth interviews were conducted with 31 patients receiving chemotherapy to identify the strategies they used to cope with the fatigue they experienced. Patients were able to identify when they noticed the fatigue and what they had tried to do. Most individuals used resting, sleeping, and decreasing activity. Relatively few tried a range of other strategies. Many perceived the fatigue as a normal part of cancer treatment and something with which they just had to put up. Heightened emotional reactions emerged when the fatigue interfered with an activity that was important to the individual. Clearly, without a systematic patient education program, patients are left to learn through trial and error what could be helpful to them in coping with the effects of fatigue.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".