MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975550753 · doi:10.1097/ppo.0000000000000395

Integrative Approaches to Stress Management

2019· review· en· W2975550753 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cancer Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionMindfulnessStress managementPsychosocialDistressPopularityPsychologyPsychotherapistMassageQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyScope (computer science)MedicineAlternative medicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This narrative review provides an overview of the scope of psychosocial distress and stress in cancer patients and survivors and the potential negative consequences of untreated symptoms. Evidence-based interventions to treat these symptoms are reviewed, beginning with a summary of published clinical practice guidelines, followed by more detailed reviews of the specific integrative interventions with the largest empirical support: cognitive-behavioral stress management, yoga, mindfulness-based interventions, and massage. We also comment on use of natural health products because of their popularity. Finally, we conclude with recommendations to improve the quality of research in integrative interventions for stress management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.518
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.058 · 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