Quality of Life and Metabolomics Analysis in Response to Meal Kit Intervention During Perioperative Chemotherapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Single-Center Phase Ⅱ Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant adverse effects, including fatigue, nausea, and taste alterations, leading to malnutrition in 40% of patients. Traditional nutritional counseling has shown limited effectiveness in addressing these challenges during treatment. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a structured meal kit intervention on quality of life and metabolomic profiles in patients with breast cancer during perioperative anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy. Methods: This single-center phase 2 randomized crossover trial will enroll 20 patients with breast cancer scheduled for perioperative chemotherapy at Jikei University Hospital between October 2024 and October 2025. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive a meal kit intervention either during the first or second 3-month period of chemotherapy. The intervention consists of weekly deliveries of preportioned ingredients with dietitian-designed recipes (one 2-serving meal kit during chemotherapy weeks, two during nonchemotherapy weeks). The primary endpoint is the change in the EORTC QLQ-C30 (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) "appetite loss" domain score. Secondary endpoints include changes in total EORTC QLQ-C30 score, plasma metabolome profiles, body composition, nutritional status, and chemotherapy completion rate. Data will be collected at baseline, crossover (12 wk), and study completion (24 wk). Results: The study was funded in March 2024. Data collection began on March 26, 2025, and as of manuscript submission, 11 participants have been recruited out of the planned 20 participants. Data analysis has not yet commenced, and results are expected to be published in Spring 2026. Conclusions: This trial will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a meal kit intervention in supporting patients with breast cancer during chemotherapy. The findings may help establish evidence-based standards for nutritional support in oncology 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".