Critical Evaluation of Nutrition Screening Tools Recommended for Oncology Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Malnutrition ranges from 20% to 80% in oncology patients. Malnutrition has been associated with reduced response to treatment, survival, and quality of life. Therefore, screening for malnutrition in patients with cancer is recommended by clinical practice groups including the Oncology Nursing Society. Nurses are in an ideal position to carry out nutrition screening. Three nutrition screening tools that have been recommended for use with oncology patients by the Oncology Nursing Society are critically evaluated. The Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment has demonstrated diagnostic value in oncology patients at risk of malnutrition or who are malnourished. Malnutrition ranges from 20% to 80% in oncology patients. Malnutrition has been associated with reduced response to treatment, survival, and quality of life. Therefore, screening for malnutrition in patients with cancer is recommended by clinical practice groups including the Oncology Nursing Society. Nurses are in an ideal position to carry out nutrition screening. Three nutrition screening tools that have been recommended for use with oncology patients by the Oncology Nursing Society are critically evaluated. The Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment has demonstrated diagnostic value in oncology patients at risk of malnutrition or who are malnourished.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it