Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Mitigation With Music Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Despite three decades of studies examining music interventions as a mitigant of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), to date, no systematic review of this literature exists. . LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Keywords for all databases were music, chemotherapy, and nausea. . DATA EVALUATION: All studies were appraised for methodology and results. . SYNTHESIS: 10 studies met inclusion criteria for review. Sample sizes were generally small and nonrandomized. Locus of control for music selection was more often with the investigator rather than the participant. Few studies controlled for the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered, nor for known patient-specific risk factors for CINV. . IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The existing data have been largely generated by nurse scientists, and implications for nursing practice are many, because music interventions are low-cost, easily accessible, and without known adverse effects. However, this specific body of knowledge requires additional substantive inquiry to generate clinically relevant data.
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 | 0.000 | 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".