MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110353604 · doi:10.2217/fon.09.43

Screening for Distress (The Sixth Vital Sign) in A Global Recession: Sustainable Approach to Maintain Patient-Centered Care

2009· article· en· W2110353604 on OpenAlexaff
Bejoy C. Thomas, Vasudevanpillai NandaMohan, Madhavan Krishnan Nair, John W. Robinson, Manoj Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionRecessionGreat recessionRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineActuarial sciencePsychiatryClinical psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial volume of research on the psychosocial impact of cancer clearly indicates that patients are likely to experience emotional distress. There is also evidence that psychosocial interventions aimed at decreasing distress provide tangible cost offsets to cancer patients, caregivers and treating institutions. One seemingly major drawback in the setup and delivery of a fully fledged screening program for distress is the extensive pecuniary requirements. Given that the categorical need for distress screening may be confounded by financial limitations, especially in a time of global recession, a cost-effective alternative seems appropriate. The model proposed herein is not a substitute screening program, nor does it eliminate the need to allocate resources to address the identified risks. It does, however, offer a cost-effective alternative to implement a high-risk distress patient identifying process, quite similar to algorithms used in screening for prostate cancer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207