MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342278004 · doi:10.1188/16.onf.273-276

Severe Obesity in Cancer Care

2016· article· en· W2342278004 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Streu

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryWeight lossCancerMorningObesityNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing weight and body fat composition has an impact on cancer detection and staging. Obese women are less likely to engage in breast and cervical screening practices. Excessive adipose tissue makes physical assessment more difficult, and patients with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 may have deeper and wider pelvic structures, which make internal examinations problematic. A retrospective review of 324 primary surgical patients found that patients with a BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 are seven times less likely to undergo complete surgical staging for endometrial cancer compared with individuals with a BMI less than 40 kg/m2. In addition, healthcare provider bias against the need for screening, feelings of discomfort and embarrassment, as well as patient's fears of guilt, humiliation, and shame pose significant barriers to addressing the issue of obesity in clinical care with patients and family members. .

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.344 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207