MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411912497 · doi:10.1002/pbc.26016

A Framework for Adapted Nutritional Therapy for Children With Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Report From the SIOP PODC Nutrition Working Group

2016· article· en· W2411912497 on OpenAlexaff
Elena J. Ladas, Brijesh Arora, Scott C. Howard, Paul Rogers, Terezie Tolar-Peterson, Ronald D. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbandonment (legal)Intervention (counseling)Medical nutrition therapyLow and middle income countriesIntensive care medicineCancer therapyCancerLow incomeDeveloping countryPediatric cancerMalnutritionPediatricsEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utilization of adapted regimens for the treatment of pediatric malignancies has greatly improved clinical outcomes for children receiving treatment in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Nutritional depletion has been associated with poorer outcomes, increased abandonment of therapy, and treatment-related toxicities. Surveys have found that nutritional intervention is not incorporated routinely into supportive care regimens. Establishing nutritional programs based upon institutional resources may facilitate the incorporation of nutritional therapy into clinical care in a way that is feasible in all settings. We present a framework for establishing and monitoring of nutritional care based on the infrastructure of institutions in LMIC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0060.020
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations102
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207