The ONE‐MIND Study: Rationale and protocol for assessing the effects of ONlinE MINDfulness‐based cancer recovery for the prevention of fatigue and other common side effects during chemotherapy
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 patients often experience poor quality of life (QoL) during chemotherapy (CT) treatments due to side effects including fatigue, insomnia, pain and nausea/vomiting. Mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) is an evidence-based intervention for treating such symptoms, but has not been investigated as an adjunctive treatment during CT. This study aims to determine the efficacy of an online group MBCR programme delivered during CT in 12 real-time interactive weekly sessions for managing fatigue (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include sleep disturbance, pain, nausea/vomiting, mood, stress and QoL. Exploratory outcomes include cognitive function, white blood cell counts and return to work. The study is a two-armed randomised controlled waitlist trial with 2:1 allocation to treatment (online group MBCR during CT) or control (waitlist usual care; online MBCR following CT completion) with a target sample size of N = 178. Participants are breast or colorectal cancer patients undergoing common CT regimens in Calgary, Canada. Online assessments using validated self-reported instruments will take place at baseline, post-MBCR, post-CT and 12 months' post-baseline. If online MBCR delivered during CT significantly reduces fatigue in cancer patients' post-CT and also impacts secondary symptoms, this would provide evidence for including mindfulness training as an adjunctive symptom management therapy during CT.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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