Brochure intervention to manage bothersome taste changes in pediatric patients receiving cancer therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary objective was to determine if a patient informational brochure describing potentially useful strategies could help manage specific taste changes. Secondary objective was to describe the specific strategies used and whether the strategies were perceived as being helpful. PROCEDURE: This single-center study included pediatric patients with cancer or hematopoietic cell transplant recipients receiving active treatment who experienced bothersome taste changes in the last month. Participants participated in baseline and follow-up interviews conducted 14-21 days apart. A brochure that listed 16 potentially helpful strategies was provided at baseline. At follow-up, we asked about brochure use and whether it helped. At both interviews, we asked about experienced taste changes, strategies used, and whether strategy helped. RESULTS: Of 100 enrolled participants, different (87%) and bad (72%) taste were most common at baseline. Following the brochure intervention, statistically significant reductions were observed in food tasting different, bad, bland, bitter, sour, and metallic. For most strategies, the proportion of patients who used specific strategies or found them helpful was not significantly different between baseline and follow-up. However, "eating foods you like" was considered helpful in significantly more participants who used the strategy in follow-up (72 out of 89, 80.9%) compared with baseline (55 out of 95, 57.9%; p = .008). Between visits, 81.2% looked at the brochure. Among participants, 53.1% found the brochure helpful, very helpful, or extremely helpful. CONCLUSIONS: A brochure that offered strategies to manage changes in taste helped participants cope with them. Further research should evaluate the brochure using randomized and multicenter trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".