A multi‐method review of home‐based chemotherapy
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
This study summarises research- and practice-based evidence on home-based chemotherapy, and explores existing delivery models. A three-pronged investigation was conducted consisting of a literature review and synthesis of 54 papers, a review of seven home-based chemotherapy programmes spanning four countries, and two case studies within the Canadian province of Ontario. The results support the provision of home-based chemotherapy as a safe and patient-centred alternative to hospital- and outpatient-based service. This paper consolidates information on home-based chemotherapy programmes including services and drugs offered, patient eligibility criteria, patient views and experiences, delivery structures and processes, and common challenges. Fourteen recommendations are also provided for improving the delivery of chemotherapy in patients' homes by prioritising patient-centredness, provider training and teamwork, safety and quality of care, and programme management. The results of this study can be used to inform the development of an evidence-informed model for the delivery of chemotherapy and related care, such as symptom management, in patients' homes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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