Supportive expressive group therapy did not prolong survival in metastatic breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goodwin PJ, Leszcz M, Ennis M, et al. The effect of group psychosocial support on survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med2001 Dec 13; 345 : 1719 –26 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In women with metastatic breast cancer, does supportive expressive group therapy (SEGT) prolong survival, improve mood, and reduce pain? Randomised {allocation concealed}*, blinded (assessors of psychosocial outcomes), controlled trial with 12 months of follow up. 7 cancer centres in Canada. 235 women (mean age 50 y) who had histological confirmation of breast cancer and had metastases outside of the breast and ipsilateral axilla. Exclusion criteria were central nervous system metastases; active psychosis, untreated major depression, or severe character disorder; planned participation in a therapist led support group for metastatic breast cancer outside of the study centre; residence >1 hour travel from the study centre; life expectancy <3 months; or inability to speak and read English. Follow up was complete for survival; follow up for psychosocial outcomes was 65% to 71%. Women were … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.aulast%253DGoodwin%26rft.auinit1%253DP.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D345%26rft.issue%253D24%26rft.spage%253D1719%26rft.epage%253D1726%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2BEffect%2Bof%2BGroup%2BPsychosocial%2BSupport%2Bon%2BSurvival%2Bin%2BMetastatic%2BBreast%2BCancer%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa011871%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11742045%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa011871&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11742045&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F82.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172656100001&link_type=ISI
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".