Integration of patient‐centered care in nutrition support decision‐making: A case report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centered care considers a patient's unique needs, values, preferences, and the psychosocial situation at the heart of decisions related to healthcare. Dietitians have reported several barriers to the practice of patient-centered care, including a lack of time and support and a perception that patients are unable to participate. This is meaningful as decisions regarding nutrition therapy, specifically in adult populations with cancer, influence patient morbidity and mortality and a patient's quality of life. Patient-centered care is associated with improved decision-making, patient-provider communication, and quality of life in patients with cancer. This case report discusses and applies patient-centered care in conjunction with the best available evidence for an adult patient with a history of head and neck cancer admitted to a critical care unit. Nutrition support clinicians are equipped to use a patient-centered and evidence-based approach to help patients navigate through nutrition therapy decisions that may influence both clinical and quality of life outcomes. Further research should be done to determine the association between patient-centered care and quality of life outcomes in nutrition support practice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it