Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of bearing witness to the lack of appetite and involuntary weight loss that characterizes cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) is reported to be stressful for family members. Research identifies that family members engage in a wide range of behaviors in response to a relative who shows minimal interest in eating and is literally 'wasting away' before their eyes. Some families, though concerned about the symptoms of CACS, do not dwell excessively on the patient's nutritional intake while others continually harass the patient to eat and petition health care providers for aggressive nutritional interventions to eat in an attempt to stave off further physical deterioration. While studies have detailed how family members respond to a terminally ill relative with CACS, empirical work explicating the explanatory models of CACS that they hold is lacking. Explanatory models (EMs) reflect the beliefs and ideas that families have about why illness and symptoms occur, the extent to which they can be controlled, how they should be treated, and how interventions should be evaluated. To address this gap in the literature, a grounded theory study guided by Kleinman's Explanatory Model questions was conducted with 25 family members of advanced cancer patients. The core category of 'Wayfaring' integrates the key categories of the model and maps onto Kleinman's questions about CACS onset, etiology, natural course, physiological processes/anatomical structures involved, treatment, and the impacts of disease on patient and family. Findings suggest that a divergence between some biomedical constructions of CACS and explanatory models held by family members may fuel the family-health care provider conflict, thereby providing direction for communication with families about care of the patient with anorexia-cachexia.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".