Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions improve food intake in cancer related anorexia and cachexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brown JK. A systematic review of the evidence on symptom management of cancer-related anorexia and cachexia. Oncol Nurs Forum2002 Apr; 29 : 517 –32 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of various strategies for management of cancer related anorexia and cachexia? Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Library, Medline, CANCERLIT, CINAHL, Dissertation Abstracts, EBM Reviews–Best Evidence, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, and the Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP). Clinical trials were selected if the focus was to increase food intake, decrease energy expenditure, minimise weight loss, or minimise factors affecting food intake or energy expenditure in patients with cancer. Studies of micronutrient supplementation over recommended daily allowances and alternative dietary cancer treatments were excluded. Data were extracted on study design and setting, sample and follow up, intervention and adherence measures, outcome measures, and analysis. 7 clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions, 4 reviews of pharmacological interventions and exercise, 1 meta-analysis of nursing symptom management, and 3 general overviews met the selection criteria. Non-pharmacological interventions : 7 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DOncology%2Bnursing%2Bforum%26rft.stitle%253DOncol%2BNurs%2BForum%26rft.aulast%253DBrown%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BK.%26rft.volume%253D29%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D517%26rft.epage%253D532%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bsystematic%2Breview%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bevidence%2Bon%2Bsymptom%2Bmanagement%2Bof%2Bcancer-related%2Banorexia%2Band%2Bcachexia.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1188%252F02.ONF.517-532%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11979284%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1188/02.ONF.517-532&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11979284&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F4%2F114.atom
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".