Status of Psychological Trials in Breast Cancer Patients: A Report of Three Meta-Analyses
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
This systematic review reports the results of three meta-analyses addressing the clinical efficacy of psychological interventions in breast cancer patients. Three outcome variables were examined: anxiety, depression and quality of life. Several moderator variables were found to both account for inter-trial heterogeneity and interact with treatment efficacy; methodological quality, prognosis, treatment type, orientation and duration. A clinically moderate treatment effect was found for anxiety (-0.40, 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.08, N = 1278). This was not robust to study quality, but remained stable for patients with more advanced disease. Short-term group therapy was more effective than longer term intervention and individual ones. A clinically moderate-to-strong effect was found in trials assessing depression (-1.01, 95% CI, -1.48 to -0.54, N = 1324). A more robust finding of -0.47 (95% -0.69 to -0.24) was based on methodologically more reliable studies treating patients with high psychological morbidity. Intervention was shown to have moderate effects on improving QOL (0.74, 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.37, N = 623), though it was not robust to study quality. Findings suggest that short-term treatments with a focus on coping may be more suitable for early breast cancer patients. Patients with advanced breast disease appear to benefit more from longer term interventions which emphasize support. Recommendations are also made for future clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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