Advancing the Evidence Base and Transforming Cancer Care Through Interprofessional Collegiality: The Society for Integrative Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) is pleased to support this seminal issue of JNCI Monographs devoted to integrative oncology and cancer survivorship. The SIO is an international professional society whose mission is to advance evidence-based, comprehensive integrative health care to improve the lives of people affected by cancer (www.integrativeonc.org). Since its founding in 2003 by pioneers in the field—Drs Barrie Cassileth, David Rosenthal, and Lorenzo Cohen—SIO has consistently encouraged rigorous scientific evaluation of both pre-clinical and clinical science, while advocating for the transformation of oncology care to integrate evidence-based complementary approaches. The vision of SIO is to have research inform the true integration of complementary modalities into oncology care, so that evidence-based complementary care is accessible and part of standard cancer care for all patients across the cancer continuum. As an interdisciplinary and interprofessional society, SIO is uniquely poised to lead the “bench to bedside” efforts in integrative cancer care. SIO members are comprised of a variety of professionals including, but not limited to, conventional cancer clinicians (ie, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and oncology nurses), family medicine providers, naturopathic doctors, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, mind–body therapists, nutritionists, patient advocates, and basic scientists. This diverse membership facilitates true clinical integration of complementary modalities because such change requires breadth of expertise and different perspectives, to listen and learn from one another while challenging each other’s assumptions and existing paradigms. Annual SIO conferences, cosponsored with major academic centers, provide an unparalleled interprofessional opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates to come together and advance integrative oncology research and best clinical practices. Health-care providers and patients alike are often searching for the next best treatment for cancer and ways to improve their quality of life in the midst of the challenges posed by disease or treatment side effects. Providers and patients wade through hundreds of articles and internet stories trying to find reliable information, which generally leaves them feeling overwhelmed and not sure what to believe. SIO’s commitment to research and knowledge translation has resulted in the development of three state-of-the-science papers and clinical guidelines. In 2009, the first article provided evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in complementary therapies with a focus on botanicals (1). Then the second article, published in 2013 in Chest, focused on integrative medicine in lung cancer (2). Finally, published in this monograph, SIO’s most recent guidelines focus on breast cancer survivorship and the use of integrative therapies in supportive care. This extensive research review and synthesis will be an invaluable resource to clinicians: to help them be well prepared to care for women with breast cancer, make appropriate referrals and recommendations, and answer breast cancer patients’ questions about the use of complementary therapies. In parallel, the guidelines will provide important information to women with breast cancer as they face decisions on whether and how to incorporate integrative therapies into their self-care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".