MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157206427 · doi:10.1002/pbc.22993

Tele‐practice guidelines for the symptom management of children undergoing cancer treatment

2011· review· en· W2157206427 on OpenAlexaffabout
Argerie Tsimicalis, Mary Jo De Courcy, Bruna Di Monte, Christine Armstrong, Patti Bambury, Julie Constantin, Barbara Dagelman, Marilyn Eves, Patty Jansen, Lisa Honeyford, Denise Stregger

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster Children's HospitalGrand River HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenHamilton Health SciencesPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationBlood cancerMEDLINEClinical PracticeHealth professionalsEvidence-based practiceFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicineHealth careCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of tele-practice symptom management is often without the provision of evidence-based guidelines. Under the auspices of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, a nursing task force was established to appraise the evidence and develop guidelines. Promising new efforts to enhance symptom management through tele-practice are emerging. Seven guidelines and one documentation tool were created from evidence compiled from case reports, clinical examples, and nonexperimental studies. The symptom management guidelines contribute to the paucity of literature and may serve as a useful resource for health professionals providing telephone advice and conducting tele-practice symptom management assessments.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207