MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143021727 · doi:10.1002/pon.897

Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer

2005· article· en· W2143021727 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jane Turner, Siggi Zapart, Karen E. Pedersen, Nicole Rankin, Karen Luxford, Jane Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPsychosocialContext (archaeology)Clinical PracticeHealth careMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Family medicineNursingPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly being developed in medical settings to provide evidence-based recommendations to guide the clinical care of patients. The development of Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of patients with medical illness is a newer initiative, and more complex as the target audience includes health care professionals from diverse backgrounds. In Australia, the National Breast Cancer Centre and National Cancer Control Initiative have collaborated to develop Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer, funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. This paper outlines the development of these guidelines in the international context, gives an overview of their content, and describes strategies for their implementation and evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations456
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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