A comparison of symptom management for children with cancer in Iran and in the selected countries: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to describe the experiences of other countries regarding the status of pediatric palliative care in the field of symptom management and to compare it with the current status in Iran to achieve an appropriate level of symptom management for children with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a comparative study. The research population includes the palliative care systems of Jordan, England, Australia, and Canada, which were ultimately compared with Iran's palliative care system. RESULTS: The results showed that in the leading countries in the field of palliative care, such as Australia and Canada, much effort has been made to improve palliative care and to expand its service coverage. In the UK, as a pioneer in the introduction of palliative care, a significant portion of clinical performance, education and research, is dedicated to childhood palliative care. Experts in this field and policymakers are also well aware of this fact. In developing countries, including Jordan, palliative care is considered a nascent specialty, facing many challenges. In Iran, there is still no plan for providing these services coherently even for adults. CONCLUSION: Children with cancer experience irritating symptoms during their lives and while they are hospitalized. Regarding the fact that symptom management in developed countries is carried out based on specific and documented guidelines, using the experiences of these successful countries and applying them as an operational model can be useful for developing countries such as Iran.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".