Searching for wisdom in oncology care: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The concept of "wisdom" is beginning to emerge in the oncology literature, raising questions concerning: (1) how the concept of wisdom is used in oncology literature; (2) the ways in which wisdom has been a focus of inquiry within oncology care; and (3) how wisdom is characterized when the term is used. METHOD: A scoping review, using Arksey and O'Malley's five-step framework, was undertaken to address these questions. In consultation with oncology reference librarians, "wisdom"- and "oncology"-related search terms were identified, and four electronic databases were searched: CINAHL, SocINDEX, PubMed, and PsychINFO. After removal of duplicates and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 58 records were identified and included for analysis. RESULTS: The concept of wisdom was employed with a breadth of meanings, and 58 records were schematized into 7 genres, including: (1) empirical research with wisdom foregrounded as a study focus (n = 2); (2) empirical research articles where "wisdom" appears in the findings (n = 16); (3) a quality-improvement project where wisdom is an embedded concept (n = 1); (4) essays where wisdom is an aspect of the discussion (n = 5); (5) commentary/opinion pieces where wisdom is an aspect of its focus (n = 6); (6) personal stories describing wisdom as something gleaned from lived experience with cancer (n = 2); and (7) everyday/taken-for-granted uses of wisdom (n = 26). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The notion of wisdom has a taken-for-granted presence in the published oncology literature and holds promise for future research into patient and clinician wisdom in oncology care. Nonetheless, the terminology is varied and unclear. A scholarly focus on wisdom has not been brought to bear in cancer care to the degree it has in other fields, and research is in the early stages. Various characterizations of wisdom are present. If such a resource as "wisdom" exists, dwelling in human experiences and practices, there may be benefit in recognizing wisdom as informing the epistemologies of practice in oncology 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".