MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460687860 · doi:10.1200/jop.2016.011072

Management of Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Practice Guideline

2016· article· en· W2460687860 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Madeline Li, Erin B. Kennedy, Nelson Byrne, Caroline Gérin-Lajoie, Mark R. Katz, Homa Keshavarz, Scott Sellick, Esther Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreCancer Care Ontario
FundersCancer Care OntarioAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePsychological interventionMEDLINEMultidisciplinary approachSystematic reviewCollaborative CareCritical appraisalRandomized controlled trialClinical trialEvidence-based medicineFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicineNursingPrimary carePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This report updates the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care guideline for the management of depression in adult patients with cancer. This guideline covers pharmacologic, psychological, and collaborative care interventions, with a focus on integrating practical management tools to assist clinicians in delivering appropriate treatments for depression in patients with cancer. METHODS: Recommendations were developed by synthesizing information from extant guidelines and reviews and searching for randomized controlled trials from the date of database inception (1964 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE) to January 2015. Quality assessment of guidelines and systematic reviews were conducted by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Final recommendations were developed through a standardized Program in Evidence-Based Care multidisciplinary expert and knowledge user review process. RESULTS: Two high-quality relevant clinical practice guidelines, eight pharmacologic trials, nine psychological trials, and eight collaborative care intervention trials composed the evidence base upon which the recommendations were developed. Eight specific recommendations were made to establish a standard of care for the management of depression in patients with cancer. The recommendations and practical management tools were reviewed as being well organized and helpful, although systemic barriers to implementation were identified. CONCLUSION: This updated guideline supports the previous general recommendation that patients with cancer who have depression may benefit from psychological and/or pharmacologic interventions, without evidence for the superiority of any specific treatment over another. New recommendations for a collaborative care model that incorporates a stepped care approach suggest that multidisciplinary mental health care restructuring may be required for optimal management of depression.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations98
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology PracticeSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207