MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386449244 · doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100306

Toward a holistic understanding of cancer cachexia: Application of the human response to illness model

2023· article· en· W4386449244 on OpenAlexaff
Susan McClement

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
FundersHelsinn
KeywordsCachexiaCancer cachexiaMedicineClinical PracticeCancerExperiential avoidanceIntervention (counseling)Experiential learningIntensive care medicineCancer treatmentPsychotherapistPsychologyNursingPsychiatryAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cachexia is a commonly presenting multidimensional syndrome in individuals living with advanced cancer. Given its prevalence of between 50% and 80%, nurses are going to encounter individuals manifesting ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that can be partially but not entirely reversed by conventional nutritional support. Thus nurses require a comprehensive understanding of this complex clinical problem. Research suggests, however, that nurses receive minimal education about cachexia or its management. Limited understanding undermines the ability to confidently care for patients with cachexia and their families, thereby hampering effective practice. The human response to illness model provides nurses with an organizing framework to guide and make sense of their assessments in clinical practice when caring for patients with cancer cachexia and provides direction for appropriate intervention. This article illustrates the integration of the human response to illness model to clinical practice, thereby assisting nurses to develop a comprehensive understanding of the physiological, pathophysiological, behavioral, and experiential facets of cachexia in advanced cancer patients. Contemporary areas of further interest and research will be presented.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Oncology NursingSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207