MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oncology massage impact on patient with cancer and caregiver self-reported symptoms as part of an integrative oncology program at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016· article· en· W2590920587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Lopez, Kathrin Milbury, Amy Spelman, Qi Wei, Pamela A Sumler, Curtiss M Beinhorn, Éduardo Bruera, Lorenzo Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMassageDistressPhysical therapySadnessAnxietyCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineClinical psychologyAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

79 Background: Massage as a manual therapy has shown benefit for symptomatic relief in patients with cancer and their caregivers. We explored the impact of a single massage session on self-reported symptoms in an outpatient clinic at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Patients and caregivers received oncology massage treatments (30 or 60-min duration) at our Integrative Medicine Center outpatient clinic from Sep 2012-Jan 2015. Participants completed a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0-10 scale, 10 most severe) pre- and post-massage. ESAS individual items and subscales scores of Physical Distress (PHS), Psychological Distress (PSS), and Global Distress (GSD) were analyzed. We used paired t-tests with a Bonferroni correction (i.e., p < .001) to examine pre/post massage self-reported symptoms. Results: Initial massage visits for 164 patients and 39 caregivers were analyzed. Highest symptoms burden (means) at baseline for patients were Sleep 3.93, Fatigue 3.70, and poor sense of Well-Being 3.62; for caregivers Distress 4.14, Sadness 3.43, and Sleep 3.21. Although patients reported significantly more physical symptoms (F = 27.56, P < .0001) compared to caregivers at baseline, groups did not differ in regard to psychological symptom burden (P = .75). Massage therapy was associated with significant improvements in PHS, PSS, and GSD for both patients and caregivers at P < .0001. Including participants with symptom report ≥ 1, massage resulted in a clinically significant improvement (reduction ≥ 1) in pain, fatigue, sleep, distress, dry mouth, sadness, numbness, anxiety, wellbeing for patients; pain, fatigue, distress, sadness, numbness, anxiety, wellbeing for caregivers. Regarding massage duration, there were no significant effects for 30 vs 60-min duration on pre/post ESAS difference scores. Conclusions: A single 30- or 60-minute massage session resulted in acute relief of self-reported symptoms in patients and caregivers. Further study is warranted regarding optimal massage dose and frequency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207