Current directions in research and treatment of fear of cancer recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An expert meeting in Ottawa in 2015 galvanized efforts to answer key questions relevant to the understanding and management of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). The aim of this review is to summarize key developments. RECENT FINDINGS: A consensus on the definition of FCR has helped to further research in this area. There have been a number of theories put forward to account for the development of FCR, all of which share key components. Importantly, a number of important trials have been published that confirm both brief and more intensive interventions can successfully treat FCR. SUMMARY: The consensus definition of FCR is an important development, as is the development of treatments for FCR. There are now evidence-based options for the management of patients with clinical levels of FCR. Future research priorities include determining the optimal cut-off points for identifying clinically significant FCR, testing the major tenets of the recent theoretical formulations of FCR; and determining the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different treatment approaches for managing FCR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".