Nutritional outcomes in head and neck cancer patients: is intensive nutritional care worth it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare nutritional outcomes before and after implementation of weekly dietetic counseling (intensive nutritional care) in head and neck cancers patients. METHODS: A retrospective study with all head and neck patients, who received radiotherapy between January 2010 and December 2017 were performed. The main outcome was significant weight loss. Compliance to caloric and protein recommendations were also evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 472 patients were included. Weight loss was not different between before and after implementation (-6.7%; IQ -10.5/-1.9 vs -5.0%; IQ -9.8/-0.7;p=0.06).There were no significant difference in terms of meeting the recommended intake. Higher baseline body mass index and oral nutritional support predicted significant weight loss. CONCLUSION: Implementation of intensive nutritional care did not have an impact on weight loss and energy and protein intake in head and neck cancer patients. Further research would be of value to determine the appropriate service-delivery model to achieve optimal patient outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".