ONS Guidelines™ for Cancer Treatment–Related Hot Flashes in Women With Breast Cancer and Men With Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hot flashes are a common and troublesome side effect of surgery or endocrine therapy. They may lead to physical and psychological distress and negatively affect quality of life. This clinical practice guideline presents evidence-based recommendations for pharmacologic, behavioral, and natural health product interventions for treatment-related hot flashes in patients with breast or prostate cancer. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: An interprofessional panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation prioritized clinical questions and patient outcomes for the management of hot flashes. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. FINDINGS: The panel agreed on 14 pharmacologic, behavioral, and natural health recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Conditional recommendations include the use of antidepressants rather than no treatment, physical activity rather than no treatment, and the avoidance of gabapentin and dietary supplements in the treatment of hot flashes. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT HTTPS: //onf.ons.org/ons-guidelines-hot-flashes-supplementary-material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".