MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785218586 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v5i1.136

Whole person integrative cancer care in action - an overview of its implementation and patient related outcomes

2018· article· en· W2785218586 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dugald Seely, Julie Ennis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineIntegrative medicineSurvivorship curvePopulationAlternative medicineCancerDistressDiseaseHealth carePhysical therapyNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning Objectives: Explore and understand the implementation and evaluation of an integrative cancer care model based on evidence based care and programming. Goals of care are to improve quality of life for those with cancer and work towards cancer prevention through a combination of approaches including Complementary medicine including nutrition, exercise and lifestyle management.Background and Project Objectives:The Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre (OICC) provides evidence-informed integrative and preventative cancer care, research, and education across the spectrum of prevention to survivorship. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the population receiving care at the OICC in terms of demographic and disease-related characteristics, in addition to their experience receiving care in terms of therapies received and preliminary outcomes.Methods: All people receiving care at the OICC are invited to complete a registration package that documents demographic and disease-related characteristics in addition to baseline quality of life (EORTC-QLQ C30), cancer-related symptom (ESAS) and patient-identified concerns or problems (MYCaW). Every 3 months, a follow up assessment is completed for continuing patients.Results:The majority of people seek care at the OICC to manage cancer and treatment related side effects. Other people seek supportive care with their prescribed standard care, to control or cure their cancer, or to prevent a recurrence. Approximately one half of people self-identify as under distress for at least one common cancerrelated symptom. Most patients consult a naturopathic doctor, often in combination with a general practitioner, nutritionist, acupuncturist, physiotherapist, or counselor.Results will be presented regarding quality of life, cancer related symptoms and patient-identified concerns, stratified as possible by age, sex, cancer type, stage and types of treatment received.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person CareSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207