MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Embedding lifestyle interventions into cancer care: has telehealth narrowed the equity gap?

2023· article· en· W4368362130 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Monographs · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTelehealthPsychological interventionMedicineSurvivorship curveHealth equityGerontologyIntervention (counseling)Cancer preventionCancer survivorEquity (law)MEDLINEHealth careTelemedicineFamily medicineNursingCancerEnvironmental healthPublic healthPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifestyle interventions targeting energy balance (ie, diet, exercise) are critical for optimizing the health and well-being of cancer survivors. Despite their benefits, access to these interventions is limited, especially in underserved populations, including older people, minority populations and those living in rural and remote areas. Telehealth has the potential to improve equity and increase access. This article outlines the advantages and challenges of using telehealth to support the integration of lifestyle interventions into cancer care. We describe 2 recent studies, GO-EXCAP and weSurvive, as examples of telehealth lifestyle intervention in underserved populations (older people and rural cancer survivors) and offer practical recommendations for future implementation. Innovative approaches to the use of telehealth-delivered lifestyle intervention during cancer survivorship offer great potential to reduce cancer burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.316 · 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