Exploring the intersection of frailty, cancer, and sepsis and potentials for rehabilitation: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project is to conduct a scoping review to explore the intersection of frailty, sepsis, and cancer and identify potentials for rehabilitation to improve survivor outcomes. We will summarize the evidence on the effect of these conditions on one another, rehabilitation strategies used for individuals with these three conditions, and outcomes assessed. The Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews, developed based on work by Arksey and O’Malley and Levac and colleages, will guide this review. This framework includes nine steps. Consultation of information scientists, stakeholders, and experts is a central part of this framework and will occur during the scoping review process. Reporting will be in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening and full text review will be completed in duplicate to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. Data on study design and PICO components will be extracted. A qualitative synthesis will summarize findings.
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 | 0.081 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".