MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081410906 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2005.8.914

Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: Indications and Clinical Practice Guidelines

2005· review· en· W2081410906 on OpenAlexaff
Noush Mirhosseini, Robin L. Fainsinger, Vickie E. Baracos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCachexiaIntensive care medicineCancer cachexiaClinical PracticeParenteral nutritionEtiologyCancerInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cachexia is a disturbing and disfiguring aspect of many advanced cancers. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a controversial and expensive treatment for cancer cachexia. Guidelines for the use of PN for these patients have been suggested. These two case reports will highlight some of the issues around the etiology of cancer cachexia, the clinical dilemmas and the use of clinical practice guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.373
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207