Effect of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program on quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: Review of clinical experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with head and neck cancer experience complex posttreatment challenges. In a preliminary uncontrolled study, we evaluated the extent to which they can benefit from an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients completed an 8-week nutrition-rehabilitation program. Six-minute walk distance (6MWD), body weight, symptom burden, distress, and quality of life were assessed at baseline and at the end of the program. RESULTS: Patients improved their mean 6MWD by 59 m (effect size = 0.8), and 78% of patients either maintained or increased their body weight. They also reported a clinically meaningful reduction in severity of insomnia, pain, weakness, anorexia, shortness of breath, depression and distress, and improvement in quality of life (effect sizes = 0.6-0.9). However, they reported no change in symptom interference with function. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary rehabilitation program may be beneficial to patients with head and neck cancer after treatment, but its effects should be evaluated in a controlled trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".