Comparison of Psychosocial Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Receiving a Coping Strategies Intervention and Control Subjects Receiving No Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This feasibility study aimed at comparing psychosocial outcomes in head and neck cancer patients receiving the Nucare program with a group of control subjects receiving no intervention. A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. The Nucare program, a short-term psychoeducational coping strategies intervention, was the test intervention. Control subjects were matched to intervention subjects by cancer stage and time since cancer diagnosis. Outcomes were quality of life and depressive symptoms evaluated at baseline and 3 to 4 months later. One hundred thirty-eight subjects were recruited, and outcome data were available on 101 subjects. At outcome evaluation, compared with their baseline scores, the intervention group had improved physical and social functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and depressive symptoms; the control group showed no changes in quality of life or depressive symptoms. The results suggest that the Nucare program may improve quality of life and reduce depressive symptoms in head and neck cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".