MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925534738 · doi:10.1002/nur.21624

Symptom Distress Profiles in Hospitalized Patients in Sweden: A Cross‐Sectional Study

2014· article· en· W1925534738 on OpenAlexaff
Ingela Henoch, Richard Sawatzky, Hanna Falk, Isabell Fridh, Eva Jakobsson Ung, Elisabeth Kenne Sarenmalm, Anneli Ozanne, Joakim Öhlén, Kristin Falk

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityProvidence Health CareCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesWestern University
FundersHealth and Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland
KeywordsMedicineDistressCross-sectional studyMedical diagnosisLatent class modelPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symptom distress profiles of patients with a variety of diagnoses at two hospitals in Sweden were examined using a point-prevalence cross-sectional survey design. The sample included 710 patients present on internal medicine, surgery, geriatric, and oncology acute care hospital wards of each hospital on a single day. Symptom distress data were collected via structured interviews using a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS). Fatigue was the most prevalent symptom, experienced by 76.2% of the patients, followed by pain (65.2%) and sleeping difficulties (52.8%). Symptoms were fairly distressing (median NRS 5-6). Patients experiencing high distress from fatigue and pain were more likely to be female, living alone, and to have more symptoms. Latent class analysis revealed three symptom distress profiles that differed with respect to the degree of distress and number of symptoms. The profiles were not substantially differentiated by diagnoses. Symptom distress needs to be assessed and treated on an individual basis, rather than predicting distress levels based on diagnosis alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.413 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207