Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007 Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) implemented standardized systematic symptom evaluation in all cancer patients in Ontario using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The initial implementation did not include symptom management guidance and this limited the success of the implementation. Within a short time, the need for guidance on how to respond to symptoms became apparent. OBJECTIVE: To describe how CCO has approached electronic symptom monitoring and related clinical response to symptom scores. RESULTS: CCO's approach to symptom management includes acknowledgment, assessment, and intervention steps. In partnership with the Program in Evidence Based Care, CCO developed guidance documents for management of each of the symptoms assessed with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. These materials included an in-depth document similar to the full guidelines created by Program in Evidence Based Care for cancer treatment topics, a shorter pocket guide, and a 1-page algorithm. The guidance was aligned with symptom score severity. The 1-page algorithm was the most popular format of these materials. When time for revisions came, only this document was revised. When additional PRO measures were implemented, the plan ensured that the launch included a bundle of clinician-facing and patient-facing guidance materials together with the measure. All resources are accessible from a mobile-friendly website. CONCLUSIONS: Providing clear guidance for symptom management is an important part of successful PRO measure implementation. Involving a wide range of stakeholders early in the creation of such resources facilitates implementation and team building.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".