MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325856041 · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000029

The range and role of palliative interventions for locally advanced breast cancer

2014· review· en· W2325856041 on OpenAlexaff
Virginia Jarvis

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionPalliative careBreast cancerDiseaseIntensive care medicineMEDLINECancerNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The role of palliative care interventions in patients with nonmetastatic disease is unclear. Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is such a diagnosis that presents a platform to examine the relationship of symptom management while patients are receiving treatment with curative intent. RECENT FINDINGS: Overwhelming physical and psychological symptoms can affect women with LABC. Fungating lesions at the time of primary presentation remain a major challenge. Treatments specifically for the treatment of fungating lesions using new dressings, topical analgesics, buccal opioids, and old techniques such as larval therapy were explored. SUMMARY: LABC is a complex biosocial disease that requires a collaborative interdisciplinary approach to 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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207