Self‐assessment in cancer patients referred to palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research in palliative care is considered difficult due to the poor health of patients. However, patient-provided data are essential for a thorough description of patient symptomatology and for the evaluation of care. METHODS: The authors examined the feasibility of a questionnaire-based study using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life instrument EORTC QLQ-C30, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in cancer patients who were receiving palliative care. This report describes the symptomatology of participating patients and examines differences in symptomatology between patients in three palliative care functions: inpatient, outpatient, and palliative home care. RESULTS: Of 267 eligible patients who were referred to a department of palliative medicine, initial self-assessment questionnaires were obtained from 176 patients (65.9%). The 91 nonparticipants were older and had lower Karnofsky Performance status (KPS) values than the participants. Almost all participating patients suffered from impaired role function and physical function and had high levels of pain, fatigue, and other symptoms. According to the HADS, 47% of patients suffered from depression. Outpatients had better scores than inpatients and patients in palliative home care for physical function, role function, cognitive function, depression, and inactivity. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to carry out a questionnaire-based study of symptomatology in consecutive cancer patients in palliative care, achieving rather complete data from the participants. The symptomatology in these patients was very pronounced. The questionnaires were able to detect clinically important differences between places of service.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".