MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162077153 · doi:10.2217/fon.15.153

Rapid Access Palliative Radiation Therapy Programs: An Efficient Model of Care

2015· review· en· W2162077153 on OpenAlex
Kristopher Dennis, Kelly Linden, Tracy A. Balboni, Edward Chow

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachPalliative careNarrative reviewRadiation therapyRadiation oncologyMedical physicsIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palliating symptoms of advanced and metastatic cancers are one of the most common indications for radiation therapy (RT), and the demand for palliative RT is increasing. Dedicated rapid access palliative RT programs improve access to care, and can deliver RT in a more efficient and evidence-based manner than standard RT programs. In this narrative review, we discuss the role of palliative RT in comprehensive cancer care, and challenges that have faced patients trying to access it. We describe how rapid access programs developed to address these challenges and provide an overview of dedicated programs worldwide. Finally, we show how these programs can serve as models for multidisciplinary care and education, and sources of exciting research opportunities in clinical care and advanced technologies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.284 · 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