MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954108327 · doi:10.3747/co.26.4713

Multidisciplinary Care of Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review of Multidisciplinary Styles, Processes, and Outcomes

2019· review· en· W2954108327 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Juliet Shao, Myanca Rodrigues, Arden Corter, Nancy N. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachMedicineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEAuditSystematic reviewPsycINFOBreast cancerPsychological interventionPopulationHealth careFamily medicineNursingCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that brings together all relevant disciplines to discuss optimal disease management. However, the literature is characterized by heterogeneous definitions and few reviews about the processes and outcomes of multidisciplinary care. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and classify the definitions and characteristics of multidisciplinary care, as well as outcomes and interventions for patients with breast cancer. Methods: A systematic search for quantitative and qualitative studies about multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer was conducted for January 2001 to December 2017 in the following electronic databases: medline, embase, PsycInfo, and cinahl. Two reviewers independently applied our eligibility criteria at level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively. Results: The search yielded 9537 unique results, of which 191 were included in the final analysis. Two main types of multidisciplinary care were identified: conferences and clinics. Most studies focused on outcomes of multidisciplinary care that could be variously grouped at the patient, provider, and system levels. Research into processes tended to focus on processes that facilitate implementation: team-working, meeting logistics, infrastructure, quality audit, and barriers and facilitators. Summary: Approaches to multidisciplinary care using conferences and clinics are well described. However, studies vary by design, clinical context, patient population, and study outcome. The heterogeneity of the literature, including the patient populations studied, warrants further specification of multidisciplinary care practice and systematic reviews of the processes or contexts that make the implementation and operation of multidisciplinary care effective.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0310.032
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207