MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375948397 · doi:10.1080/14737140.2023.2207829

Consideration of quality of life in the treatment decision-making for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

2023· review· en· W4375948397 on OpenAlexaff
Boris G. Naraev, Josh Mailman, Þorvarður R. Hálfdánarson, Heloisa P. Soares, Erik Mittra, Julie Hallet

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Neuroendocrine tumorsDiseaseIntensive care medicineClinical trialInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a complex and heterogenous family of solid malignancies that originate from neuroendocrine tissue in the gastrointestinal tract or pancreas. Most patients diagnosed with GEP-NETs present with advanced or metastatic disease, and quality of life (QoL) is often an important priority when selecting treatments for these patients. Patients with advanced GEP-NETs often experience a substantial and persistent symptom burden that undermines their QoL. Addressing a patient's individual symptoms through judicious selection of treatment may improve QoL. AREAS COVERED: The objectives of this narrative review are to summarize the impact of advanced GEP-NETs on patient QoL, assess the potential value of current treatments for maintaining or improving patient QoL, and offer a clinical framework for how these QoL data can be translated to inform clinical decision-making for patients with advanced GEP-NETs. EXPERT OPINION: Patients with advanced GEP-NETs experience a significant and persistent symptom burden that impacts their daily lifestyle, activities, work life, and financial health, leading to erosion of their QoL. Ongoing and future studies incorporating longitudinal QoL assessments and head-to-head treatment evaluations will further inform the incorporation of QoL into clinical decision-making.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207