Retrospective Outcomes of a New Acupuncture Service at a Comprehensive Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Among cancer centers, patients' interest in acupuncture is growing, in addition to clinical research in the intervention. Their National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center piloted an acupuncture service. Their aim was to assess whether acupuncture impacted patient self-reported symptoms as delivered clinically and discuss their implementation strategy. Methods:Patients undergoing acupuncture at a comprehensive cancer center from June 2019 to March 2020 were asked to complete a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) before and after each session. The authors evaluated symptom changes after acupuncture in both outpatient and inpatient settings. A change of ≥1 U, on the 0–10 scale, was considered clinically significant. Results:Three hundred and nine outpatient and 394 inpatient acupuncture sessions were provided to patients at the comprehensive cancer center during this period, of which surveys from 186 outpatient (34 patients) and 124 inpatient (57 patients) sessions were available for analysis. The highest pretreatment symptoms reported by outpatients were neuropathy (5.78), pain (5.58), and tiredness (5.59). Outpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in pain (ESAS score change of −2.97), neuropathy (−2.68), decreased lack of well-being (−2.60), tiredness (−1.85), nausea (−1.83), anxiety (−1.56), activities of daily living issues (−1.32), depression (−1.23), anorexia (−1.19), insomnia (−1.14), and shortness of breath (−1.14). The most severe pretreatment symptoms reported by inpatients were pain (6.90), insomnia (6.16), and constipation (5.44). Inpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in anxiety (−3.69), nausea (−3.61), insomnia (−3.26), depression (−2.98), pain (−2.77), neuropathy (−2.68), anorexia (−2.20), constipation (−1.95), and diarrhea (−1.26). Conclusion:Both outpatient and inpatient participants in this pilot acupuncture program reported clinically significant improvements in symptoms after a single acupuncture treatment. Some differences between the outpatient and inpatient settings warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".