Holistic multimodal care for patients with cancer cachexia and their family caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with cancer cachexia frequently suffer from physical symptoms and psychological symptoms of illness, which can lead to emotional distress in patients and family caregivers. Although there is no standard care to manage cancer cachexia despite its high prevalence and negative impact on quality of life in patients and family caregivers, there is accumulating evidence showing the importance of holistic multimodal care for cancer cachexia. However, there is no agreement on the essential components of holistic multimodal care. Therefore, the aims of this review are to give an overview of what is known about the holistic multimodal care and to suggest the composition of a multidisciplinary team to achieve holistic interventions. Holistic multimodal care for cancer cachexia is defined as an approach that addresses physical health through medical, pharmacological, nutritional, and rehabilitative interventions as well as psychological, emotional, and social well-being issues according to the needs of patients and family caregivers. Moreover, an ideal multidisciplinary team is proposed to achieve holistic interventions based on patient- and family-centered care. However, the development of educational programs on cancer cachexia for both clinicians and patients and family caregivers is needed. Furthermore, measurements to assess the benefits of holistic multimodal care also need to be established.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".