Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Nurses are increasingly becoming involved in integrative oncology (IO) programs. This study examined the additive effect of nurse-provided guidance for self-administered IO therapies on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Methods: The study was randomized and controlled, enrolling patients undergoing active oncology treatment with IO interventions for fatigue and other QoL-related outcomes. IO practitioner guidance on self-treatment with manual, relaxation, and/or traditional herbal therapies was provided to patients in both the intervention and control arms. However, patients in the intervention arms also received additional guidance on self-treatment by IO-trained palliative care nurses. All participants were assessed for fatigue and QoL at baseline and at 24-h follow-up, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) questionnaire tools. Results: Of 353 patients recruited, 187 were randomized to the intervention and 166 to the control group. Both groups had similar demographic and oncology-related characteristics. Patients in the intervention arm reported significantly greater improvement in ESAS scores for fatigue (p = 0.026) and appetite (p = 0.003) when compared to controls.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
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 it