Nutrition Assessment and Counseling in Integrative Cancer Care: Effects on Patient Self-Reported Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition guidance can affect treatment and survival outcomes for patients with cancer. The effect of a single nutrition consult on patient-reported outcomes is not well known. This study describes characteristics of patients referred for a single outpatient nutrition consult in an integrative oncology center at a cancer hospital, examining effects on self-reported symptoms. METHODS: We completed a retrospective chart review of 1517 adult oncology patients who completed a single nutrition consult. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and reasons for referral were extracted. Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (mESAS) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS10) scores were collected. Standard descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. RESULTS: Most patients were white, women, overweight/obese with breast cancer and non-advanced disease, mean age 55.3 years. Primary reasons for referral were "lifestyle change," "overweight weight-related," and "nutrition knowledge deficit." PROMIS10 results were average. Other than sleep and hot flashes, mESAS symptom scores at baseline were in the mild range. All change scores after nutrition consult were statistically but not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting for nutrition counseling had a mild symptom burden at baseline and experienced statistically, not clinically, significant improvement in self-reported symptoms following a single visit. Additional research is needed to explore strategies to enhance the intervention and understand the effects of multiple follow-up sessions.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".