MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417289176 · doi:10.1111/jan.70441

A Tale of Two Conditions: 50 Years of Chronic Illness and Cancer From a Nursing Perspective

2025· article· en· W4417289176 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sally Thorne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)CancerMEDLINEPublic healthNursing research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In this commentary, I consider the disparity between the care we see as a necessity for cancer patients and the lack of care we afford to many persons with chronic disease. BACKGROUND: I ground my arguments in my own clinical practice and research experiences over a 50-year period augmented by reference to available literature sources. DATA SOURCES: In tracing developments within the fields of cancer and chronic illness care, I draw on my own research and that of others. OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE: Although chronic illness has long been recognised as causing the majority of the burden on our health care systems and as a significant source of suffering in our society, it has not attracted the level of enthusiasm from researchers, policy makers, and health care systems that we have seen in the context of other diseases such as cancer. Nurses have an intimate knowledge of the suffering occasioned by chronic illness; however, it has been difficult for nursing to mobilise coordinated action in prioritising a re-balance of health systems to better serve those with chronic conditions. FINDINGS: The advent of medical assistance in dying in Canada has shed a spotlight on the implications of the discrepancy between our prioritising patient need in the care and support of patients with conditions such as cancer, in contrast with the supports and services we make available to those with chronic conditions. DISCUSSION: Although nursing intimately engages with the burden of chronic illness, it has not mobilized coherent advocacy toward strengthening our societal commitment to this aspect of our care systems. CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity for nursing to make a meaningful difference in a fundamental health care system inequity if we can come to understand that chronic illness is as deserving of our collective research, practice change, and policy attention as is cancer. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.025
Scholarly communication0.0100.024
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0170.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207