Comparison of the symptoms reported by post-operative patients with cancer and nurses’ perception of patient symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the symptoms reported by patients with cancer after palliative surgery and mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU) with their primary nurses' perception of the symptoms. The study adopted a descriptive and correlational study design. The sample comprised 60 Turkish patients with cancer who had been mechanically ventilated for 1-12 h at the ICU following palliative surgery. In addition to the patients' reports, the nurses (= 8) independently rated their own perceptions of the patients' symptoms. Data were collected using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The mean age of the sample was 62.28 years (SD = 15.02; range: 27-86). The mean score of the patients on the ESAS was 55.17 (SD = 26.16) and that of the nurses was 55.48 (SD = 27.13). The study found no statistically significant differences between scores of patients' reports and nurses' assessments of symptoms, except for the category of pain. Patients reported more pain than the nurses' perceived (Z = -2.311, P = 0.021). Systematic and frequent symptom assessments of patients in ICUs after palliative surgical operations should be an integral part of nursing 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".