Screening for distress, the sixth vital sign, in lung cancer patients: effects on pain, fatigue, and common problems—secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial examined the impact of an online routine screening for distress program on physical symptoms and common psychosocial and practical problems in lung cancer outpatients. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned to either the minimal screening group (the Distress Thermometer plus usual care); full screening group (Distress Thermometer, Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC), Pain Thermometer, Fatigue Thermometer, and the Psychological Screen for Cancer Part C, with a personalized report summarizing concerns); or triage (full screening plus option of personalized phone triage). Outcomes included pain, fatigue and psychosocial, practical and physical problems. Patients were reassessed 3 months later. RESULTS: A total of 549 lung patients completed baseline measures (89% of eligible patients) and 65.9% were retained at 3 months. At 3 months follow-up, significantly fewer patients in the triage group (32.1%) reported pain compared with the minimal screening group (49.6%), but the triage and full screening groups were not significantly different from one another. Patients in the triage group reported fewer problems with coping compared with the minimal and full screening groups and fewer problems with family conflict compared with the minimal screening group. Full screening patients reported fewer problems with breathlessness compared with the minimal screening group. No differences were found among groups in fatigue. Referrals were not associated with changes in outcomes over time. CONCLUSIONS: Routine screening for distress followed by personalized triage resulted in the most benefit for lung patients, with fewer fully screened and triaged patients reporting physical symptoms and psychosocial problems than those only minimally screened.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".