Systematic review on the technology’s role in supporting lung cancer patients in the treatment journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examines the role of technology-based interventions in supporting lung cancer patients during their treatment. It identifies (1) the different technologies utilized, (2) their functions and benefits, and (3) the barriers encountered by patients. The authors searched six databases for literature examining the use of technology to support treatment among lung cancer patients. Twenty-three papers were included. We mapped each technology, telehealth platforms, online portals, and mobile apps, to specific treatment phases (pre-treatment, active treatment, post-treatment) and symptom domains (symptom management (N = 17), emotional distress (N = 12), and patient-provider communication (N = 7)). Our results demonstrate that technology can effectively alleviate treatment-related symptoms, reduce emotional burden, and enhance communication. Key barriers included low digital literacy and limited device access. By explicitly linking intervention types to treatment stages and patient needs, this review provides a practical framework for designing and implementing tailored digital support strategies in lung cancer care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".