MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nutrition services for men with prostate cancer: A health professional survey.

2018· article· en· W2807055868 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kaity McLaughlin, Lindsay Hedden, Phil Pollock, Celestia S. Higano, Rachel A. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveFamily medicineFocus groupCancer survivorshipProstate cancerHealth careHealth professionalsNursingGerontologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

25 Background: Nutrition is a key part of prostate cancer (PC) survivorship for management of PC, treatment side effects, and overall health. The Prostate Cancer Supportive Care (PCSC) Program is one of only a few PC survivorship programs in Canada that provide nutrition support as part of standard care. A survey was conducted as part of a broader needs assessment to understand health care professionals’ (HCPs) perspectives on nutrition services for men with PC and inform nutrition programs. Methods: An online survey was administered to British Columbia (BC) HCPs caring for men with PC including urologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, registered dietitians and researchers. We used purposive sampling to identify relevant HCPs. HCPs were asked about the importance of oncological nutrition services and how they should be delivered to men with PC. We summarized the percent agreement for each question and across professions then thematically analyzed qualitative data. Results: Of the 56 HCPs invited to participate in the survey, 38 (68%) responded. The majority (61%) agreed that men with PC require more nutritional support. HCPs indicated nutrition services should be offered multiple times throughout survivorship and facilitated through online resources, individual consultations with registered dietitians and consecutive group education sessions. Most (75%) urologists, radiation oncologists and medical oncologists responded that weight management should be the focus for nutrition services, whereas 90% of dietitians responded that nutrition for reducing the risk of PC progression should be the focus. The main themes that arose from the survey suggested that nutrition services should be available in different forms to facilitate individual needs and adapted based on cultural and community settings. Conclusions: HCPs confirm that there is an unmet need for nutrition services for men with PC in BC as existing services prioritize and offer services for cancer-related weight loss. Special consideration should be given to the focus of nutrition service provided, and when and how it is offered. These results will inform the development of additional resources for men with PC to support their nutritional needs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→