MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200456919 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000815

Psychological symptoms of illness and emotional distress in advanced cancer cachexia

2021· article· en· W4200456919 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Emotional distressPsychological interventionDistressCachexiaPsychological distressCancer cachexiaSocial supportCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia induces both physical and psychological symptoms of illness in patients with advanced cancer and may generate emotional distress in patients and families. However, physical symptoms of cachexia received the most emphasis. The aims of this review are to elucidate a link between systemic inflammation underlying cachexia and psychological symptoms and emotional distress, and to advance care strategy for management of psychological symptoms and emotional distress in patients and families. RECENT FINDINGS: The main themes in the literature covered by this review are psychological symptoms in patients and emotional distress in patients and families. Studies of the underlying biology of cachexia identify the role of the central nervous system to amplify tumor-induced systemic inflammation. The brain mediates a cluster of symptoms, such as sleep disruption, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and reduction in motivated behavior (notably anorexia). These are distressing to patients as well as to families. SUMMARY: There is growing recognition that holistic multimodal interventions are needed to alleviate psychological symptoms and emotional distress and to improve quality of life in patients with cancer cachexia and families. This is an approach that addresses not only physical health but also psychological, emotional, and social well being issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207