MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212823620 · doi:10.1002/pbc.25813

Procedural Preparation and Support as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology

2015· review· en· W2212823620 on OpenAlexaff
Stacy R. Flowers, Kathryn A. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypnosisPsychological interventionDistractionPediatric oncologyCoping (psychology)Intervention (counseling)Pediatric cancerCognitionMEDLINEClinical psychologyCancerAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathologyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth with cancer undergo many repeated and invasive medical procedures that are often painful and highly distressing. A systematic review of published research since 1995 identified 65 papers (11 review articles and 54 empirical studies) that investigated preparatory information and psychological interventions for a variety of medical procedures in pediatric cancer. Distraction, combined cognitive-behavioral strategies, and hypnosis were identified as effective for reducing child pain and increasing child coping. Low- to high-quality evidence informed strong recommendations for all youth with cancer to receive developmentally appropriate preparatory information and psychological intervention for invasive medical procedures.

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 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 score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations67
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207