Health professionals’ attitudes toward the detection and management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and a proposal for standardized assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The identification and management of patients with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) can be a challenge despite recent international consensus on the definition of the condition. OBJECTIVES: To describe the current views and practice patterns of community oncologists and oncology nurses in regard to CACS and to propose a standardized, pragmatic assessment of CACS for oncological practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Responses from 151 community oncologists and nurses obtained across 5 surveys were analyzed. Questions addressed CACS in general and in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Surveys 1-3 were directed at physicians, and surveys 4 and 5 were directed at nurses. Surveys 1, 2, 4, and 5 focused on the recognition and monitoring of CACS, and Survey 3 on symptom management. RESULTS: 67% of medical oncologists in Survey 3 selected weight loss as the most important criterion for diagnosing CACS and cited declining appetite and performance status (PS) as the most bothersome effects for patients and families. Weight maintenance/gain was the primary treatment objective for oncologists. Respondents to surveys 1 and 2 acknowledged the risk for CACS is high (60%) in NSCLC but considered the risk much lower (4%) in patients completing a first course of therapy with good PS. 91% of oncologists in Survey 3 reported that symptoms that had an impact on calorie intake were important/very important, and 73% were willing to consider a symptom assessment instrument that included appetite. Nurses in surveys 4 and 5 reported weight loss and appetite were most commonly used to identify cachexia. They considered responsibility for the initial assessment of cachexia was the oncologist's (32%), followed by the nurse practitioner (28%), and the nurse (16%). CONCLUSION: Most oncologists and nurses recognize the core criteria for the CACS, although there may be under-recognition of the condition's prevalence, particularly earlier in the course of treatment. There is considerable interest in adopting a brief assessment tool for screening, management, and referral of patients who are affected by or at-risk of CACS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".