Medical nursing care of gastrointestinal tumour patients during chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This research with gastrointestinal cancer patients analyzed the expected outcomes of nursing interventions on a) patient adherence to treatment; b) patient satisfaction with nursing care; and c) health of body conditions such as lung function. Methods: All patients (60 individuals) who underwent chemotherapy at The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, were divided into two equal groups. Group 1 received planned care and Group 2 received evidence-based nursing interventions. Results: The results showed that treatment adherence was higher in Group 2 than in the control group (p = 0.01). In addition, there was a higher rating by patients for the quality of nursing care (p = 0.01), as well as a higher score obtained for lung function (p = 0.01). Treatment adherence resulted in a decrease in the secondary infection rate in Group 2 (p = 0.05). Conclusion: The results showed that quality nursing intervention is effective for lung function improvement, stress level reduction, treatment plans, and a reduction of secondary infections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".