Gestion à domicile des symptômes du cancer : revue exploratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette revue exploratoire avait pour but d’examiner les interventions utilisées par les infirmières dans le contexte des soins à domicile pour gérer les symptômes chez les adultes atteints de cancer. Des recherches ont été effectuées dans diverses bases de données (CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, EBM Reviews et Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice) à l’aide des mots clés cancer, domicile, soins infirmiers, symptôme et protocole. Parmi les 390 articles trouvés, cinq répondaient aux critères d’inclusion. Les études retenues ont été réalisées entre 1989 et 2009. Les résultats ont révélé que les services de soins infirmiers à domicile amélioraient la gestion des symptômes, favorisaient l’autonomie, contribuaient à maintenir la qualité de vie et diminuaient l’utilisation des services de soins de santé. Deux études ont utilisé des lignes directrices fondées sur des données probantes pour la gestion des symptômes du cancer. Même si peu d’études ont exploré les interventions infirmières pour la gestion à domicile des symptômes du cancer, leurs données probantes indiquent que cette pratique améliore certains résultats concernant les patients et le système.
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: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.037 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".