MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing a survivorship program for head and neck cancer patients.

2013· article· en· W2615544166 on OpenAlexaff
Jolie Ringash, Maurene McQuestion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveMedicinePsychosocialCancer survivorshipScope (computer science)Scope of practiceFamily medicineGerontologyNursingCancerHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17007 Background: Our institution receives approximately 700 new patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) annually. A need was identified to develop, provide and evaluate services for the unique needs of HNC patients and their families. Methods: A dual leadership model was established, involving two HNC specialists: an advanced practice nurse and a radiation oncologist. After a literature search and environmental survey, we contacted identified H&N survivorship programs. Internal participants were identified from the HNC clinical team and existing institutional survivorship program. We established interdisciplinary Steering (focused on development and oversight of clinical & education programs) and Research (tasked with assessing needs and outcomes) committees. We sought consensus on program principles, scope, a definition of survivorship, and a theoretical model of the HNC journey. A half-day retreat including community partners and patient/family representatives was held to set 5-year priorities. Results: Little published literature on survivorship initiatives specific to HNC exists. Three HNC survivorship clinical or research programs were identified; the largest (established in 2009) was visited, while telephone contact was made with investigators at the others. Principles guiding program development included interdisciplinary collaboration, grass-roots expertise, and a holistic scope. We defined survivors as all HNC patients and their families, from diagnosis through death. Program scope includes physical, emotional, social, financial, functional and psychosocial needs. A theoretical map of the cancer journey and evolving challenges was developed. The retreat included 50 participants, representing 20 different roles. We identified these top priorities: 1) Establish a post-treatment team; 2) Make survivorship a (mandatory) standard of care; 3) Optimize patient navigation; 4) Match services to specific patient groups (eg. men); 5) Expand access to allied health services; and 6) Develop a clinical care pathway. Conclusions: Survivorship is a complex and evolving area of research and care delivery. A team-based, comprehensive approach has been developed to address the needs of the highly specialized HNC population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207