Development of a Website Providing Evidence-Based Information About Nutrition and Cancer: Fighting Fiction and Supporting Facts Online
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although widely available, the general public, cancer patients, and cancer survivors have difficulties accessing evidence-based information on nutrition and cancer. It is challenging to distinguish myths from facts, and sometimes conflicting information can be found in different places. The public and patients would benefit from evidence-based, correct, and clear information from an easily recognizable source. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to make scientific information available for the general public, cancer patients, and cancer survivors through a website. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate the development of the website as well as related statistics 1st year after its launch. METHODS: To develop the initial content for the website, the website was filled with answers to frequently asked questions provided by cancer organizations and the Dutch Dietetic Oncology Group, and by responding to various fiction and facts published in the media. The website was organized into 3 parts, namely, nutrition before (prevention), during, and after cancer therapy; an opportunity for visitors to submit specific questions regarding nutrition and cancer was included. The website was pretested by patients, health care professionals, and communication experts. After launching the website, visitors' questions were answered by nutritional scientists and dieticians with evidence- or eminence-based information on nutrition and cancer. Once the website was live, question categories and website statistics were recorded. RESULTS: Before launch, the key areas for improvement, such as navigation, categorization, and missing information, were identified and adjusted. In the 1st year after the launch, 90,111 individuals visited the website, and 404 questions were submitted on nutrition and cancer. Most of the questions were on cancer prevention and nutrition during the treatment of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The website provides access to evidence- and eminence-based information on nutrition and cancer. As can be concluded from the number of visitors and the number of questions submitted to the website, the website fills a gap.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".