Quality-of-life trajectory of clients and carers referred to a community palliative care service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care clients often have a reduced quality of life (QOL). The purpose of this study was to explore the QOL trajectory of clients and carers newly referred to a community palliative care service. A total of 49 clients and 43 carers respectively completed the McGill QOL scale (MQOL) and the caregiver QOL cancer scale (CQOLC) questionnaires. Baseline data relating to demographics, health status, and QOL are presented for the 49 participants and their 43 carers, and these are compared with follow-up data from 22 clients and 13 carers (matched pairs). On average, there were no significant differences between baseline and follow-up QOL scores in any respects for either clients or carers, including measures of burden, disruptiveness, positive adaptation, and financial concerns. Whether this indicates that the care administered succeeded in cancelling out the worsening of the clients' conditions or whether it indicates a shortcoming of the care was not assessed.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".