MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychosocial and Integrative Oncology: Interventions Across the Disease Trajectory

2022· review· en· W4295749537 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda E. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialMindfulnessAnxietyPsychotherapistPsychologyDistressDiseaseIntegrative medicinePsycho-oncologyClinical psychologyAlternative medicineMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an overview of the fields of psychosocial and integrative oncology, highlighting common psychological reactions to being diagnosed with and treated for cancer, including distress, anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence and caregiver burden, as well as symptoms of fatigue, pain, and sleep disturbance. Patterns of symptomatology across the disease continuum are also discussed. Interventions targeted at treating these symptoms are reviewed, including acceptance-based and mindfulness therapies, mind-body therapies, and meaning-based approaches designed for people with advanced stages of disease, including psychedelic therapy. Common methodological issues and shortcomings of the evidence base are summarized with design recommendations, and a discussion of trends in future research including pragmatic research design, digital health interventions, and implementation science completes the article.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations49
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PsychologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207