Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Effectiveness and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Nursing in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported quality of life (e.g., EORTC QLQ-C30).Quality assessment / Risk of bias analysis RCTs will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.Non-RCTs will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Strategy of data synthesisMeta-analysis will be conducted using RevMan and Stata.Risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI will be calculated for dichotomous outcomes; mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.Heterogeneity will be assessed using I statistics.Random-effects models will be used if heterogeneity is high.Subgroup analysis Subgroup analyses will be conducted based on cancer type, intervention type, treatment duration, and study quality.Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analyses will be performed by excluding low-quality studies and rerunning the analysis to test robustness.China, Sichuan. Country(ies) involved
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".