Breast Cancer Patients’ Preferred Source and Timing of Nutrition Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important that breast cancer patients know where they can access evidence-based nutrition information because misinformation may lead to confusion for patients regarding dietary requirements, as well as potentially causing harm to health. There are gaps in knowledge about where and when patients seek nutrition information. Our exploratory study used telephone interviews to investigate where patients with breast cancer obtained nutrition information pre and postdiagnosis, and their preferred sources and timing for receiving nutrition information. We interviewed 29 women diagnosed with breast cancer who had attended the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Alberta. The structured interview included 13 closed-ended questions and 1 open-ended question. Interviews revealed that motives for seeking nutrition information changed between pre and postdiagnosis, but the sources did not. The majority of participants did not access a registered dietitian (RD) postdiagnosis but did specify that meeting with a RD would be their preferred source of information. Responses varied for the preferred sources and timing of nutrition information provision. Our study suggests that further research is necessary to know how to best meet the nutrition information needs of patients diagnosed with breast cancer.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".