What Are the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding Potential Cancer Rehabilitation in a Tertiary Cancer Center?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer Rehabilitation (CR) is an emerging field in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Current literature highlights the effectiveness of cancer rehabilitation in improving functional outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, and improved quality of life. Despite this, there are very few formalized CR programs across all of North America. We conducted a survey at a tertiary cancer center without a formalized CR program to assess the perceived need of such a program and its potential development. This survey of medical, surgical, radiation and pediatric oncologists demonstrated that 92.3% of 39 respondents felt CR was somewhat to very important, particularly for their patients' issues of fatigue, deconditioning, pain management and disposition planning. These findings highlight the value seen by oncologists in the need for further cancer rehabilitation access and formalized program development in order to meet patient needs for improving functional deficits, activities of daily living and quality of life.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it