Review: limited evidence exists on the effect of psychological coping styles on cancer survival or recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petticrew M, Bell R, Hunter D. Influence of psychological coping on survival and recurrence in people with cancer: systematic review. BMJ2002 ; 325 : 1066 –9 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In patients with cancer, do psychological coping styles such as fighting spirit, helplessness/hopelessness, denial, and avoidance improve survival or prevent recurrence? Studies up to June 2002 were identified by searching Medline, PsycINFO, ASSIA, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Cancerlit, CINAHL, and Dissertation Abstracts. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed, and experts were contacted for unpublished information. Studies published in any language were selected if they were cohort studies, patients had cancer, and outcomes included mortality, survival, or recurrence. Exclusion criteria included studies of the association between coping and immune responses or other biochemical markers (if this was the only outcome reported) and studies … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.volume%253D325%26rft.issue%253D7372%26rft.spage%253D1066%26rft.epage%253D1066%26rft.atitle%253DEndpiece%253A%2BOnly%2BTen%2BCommandments%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.325.7372.1066%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12424165%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=325/7372/1066&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F88.atom
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 | 0.012 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".