What goes up does not always come down: patterns of distress, physical and psychosocial morbidity in people with cancer over a one year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the concept of distress as the 6th vital sign gains strength in cancer care, research on the experience of patients is critical. This study longitudinally examined patients' physical and psychosocial concerns over the year following diagnosis. METHODS: Between July 2007 and February 2008, patients attending a large tertiary cancer centre were recruited to participate in a study examining their levels of distress, pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety over a year. RESULTS: A total of 877 patients provided baseline data with 620, 589 and 505 retained at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Overall, levels of distress, depression and anxiety decreased significantly over the study period. No significant changes were found in levels of pain or fatigue. Demographics (being unmarried) and medical interventions (particularly having radiation therapy) predicted persistent distress, anxiety and depression, whereas receiving psychosocial support predicted decreased levels of distress, anxiety and depression. Some patients reported continued clinical levels of distress (29%), pain (19%) and fatigue (40%) 12 months post diagnosis. DISCUSSION: For some people, distress, depression, and anxiety may be transient and decrease over time, but for others they may be sustained. Pain and fatigue may remain present in many cancer patients. There is a need to modify current clinical practice to facilitate the appropriate assessment and management of distress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".