Testosteron, veksthormon (GH) og insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) responsar ved styrketrening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this survey was to examine patient-doctor communication about the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by adult patients with cancer and compare patients' satisfaction with the consultation between patients who had and those who had not discussed the use of CAM with their doctors. Oncologists from three hospitals screened patients for eligibility. Eligible patients were mailed a letter of invitation with a questionnaire (N = 1,323). Three hundred eighty-one questionnaires were returned. Sixty-five percent of cancer patients used at least one form of CAM. Use of CAM was not discussed with the oncologist by 55% of respondents using biologically based CAM and by 80% of those using non-biologically based CAM since the diagnosis of cancer. Patients who discussed the use of biologic CAM with their oncologists were more satisfied with the consultation than those who had not (p = .027), whereas there were no significant differences between patients who discussed or did not discuss use of non-biologically based CAM (p = .102). A substantial proportion of cancer patients do not discuss the use of CAM with their oncologists. It is important to improve patient-doctor communication about the use of CAM to increase patients' satisfaction with the oncology consultation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".