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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".