MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psicooncología en cáncer avanzado. Terapia CALM, una intervención canadiense

2019· article· es· W2993957918 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paulina Troncoso G., Anne Rydall, Gary Rodin

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista chilena de neuro-psiquiatría · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced cancer is associated with numerous challenges including progressive physical deterioration that triggers fears regarding dependence and loss of autonomy, mortality and meaning of life.The continuous increase in survival in oncology patients has led them to live in a process of adaptation and continuous changes, which carries a great emotional burden for both the patient and his or her family.Many terminal cancer patients meet criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis or sign distress, with depressive symptoms being very frequent.This makes us think of the imperative need for appropriate interventions for people in this situation, where existential issues, restructuring of purpose, interpersonal relationships, meaning of life and the process of dying and death play a fundamental role.The aim of this work is to describe a Canadian experience of a brief individual psychological therapy called Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which was developed and evaluated over the last 10 years in Toronto.CALM Therapy was designed to reduce distress and promote psychological well-being in patients with advanced cancer; this article will describe its main components, characteristics and evidence of its benefit for this population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista chilena de neuro-psiquiatríaSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207