Integrative oncology consultation and symptom palliation: Analysis of patient-reported outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
84 Background: Patients (pts) receiving cancer care are increasingly interested in complementary health approaches to improve symptoms and quality of life. We report on demographics and patient reported outcomes in an integrative oncology (IO) clinic. Methods: Pts presenting for IO consultation or follow-up completed: Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Short Form 12 (SF-12) quality of life (QOL) scale, and an overall satisfaction questionnaire. Consultations were provided by medical oncologists. Results: 2,474 consultations were conducted from 9/2009 to 12/2013; 26.0% (n = 643) had ≥ 1 follow-up visit (mean 3.2; SD1.8). Most were female (69%) and white (75%); most frequent cancer types was breast (29%); 29% of pts had advanced disease. At baseline, ESAS scores were highest for Sleep (4.2; SD 2.8), Fatigue (4.0; SD 2.8), Well-Being (3.8 SD 2.6) and Anxiety (3.1; SD 2.9). Those with advanced disease had significantly higher baseline ESAS scores for pain, nausea, shortness of breath, and appetite; higher ESAS subscale scores for physical and global distress; lower SF-12 physical health scores; and were more interested in developing an integrative/holistic approach and appetite. Those with loco-regional disease were more interested in overall health, hot flashes, and dry mouth. For ESAS baseline scores ≥ 4 and follow up within 30 days of the initial consult, we observed overall improvement in ESAS symptoms (38-60% of pts with ESAS decrease ≥ 1). Overall satisfaction was high at both initial encounter (9.4; SD 1.3) and first follow up (9.5; SD 1.2). Patients were satisfied to very satisfied with how well MYCaW concern 1 and 2 were addressed: 8.0 (SD 2.2) and 9.1 (SD 1.8). No difference in overall satisfaction was observed comparing those with advanced vs loco-regional disease. Conclusions: Most pts presenting for integrative oncology consultation have early stage disease, relatively low symptom burden, and are most interested in support for overall health. Patients were overall very satisfied with how well their top concerns were addressed, with significant improvements in symptom distress.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".