Nutrition Education Seminars for Prostate Cancer—Diet and Prostate Program: Evaluation and Recommendations (DAPPER Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrition is important for prostate cancer (PCa) care as it may influence PCa progression and risk of comorbid diseases. The aim of this pilot study was to assess changes in knowledge and satisfaction in men with PCa following attendance at a nutrition education seminar. Fifty-two men with PCa attended nutrition education seminars instructed by a Registered Dietitian. Participants completed the Revised General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (GNKQ-R) preseminar and 2 weeks postseminar, along with a satisfaction survey. Increased nutrition knowledge was observed through a significant (P = 0.023) improvement in mean scores of 71.6% (P < 0.005) preseminar compared with 79.3% (P < 0.005) postseminar on the GNKQ-R. Participants reported the seminar as a satisfactory method for meeting their diet information needs. Using thematic analysis 3 themes emerged: importance of diet information, desire for an integrative approach, and the value of group learning. This pilot study found that a group nutrition education seminar may be an effective and satisfactory approach to fulfilling the dietary information needs of this population. Group education may be an economically sustainable approach with potential application in other tumour sites or health conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".