Symptoms in the Lives of Terminal Cancer Patients: Which Is the Most Important?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Symptoms other than their primary disease can interfere in the lives of terminal cancer patients. We sought to identify which of these symptoms is most important. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire, including the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), to 142 terminal cancer patients at the National Cancer Center, Korea. The validity of the MDASI was tested by principal-axis factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine the symptoms that interfered most in terminal cancer patients' lives. RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that it was composed of two factors (symptom and interference scales). Cronbach's alpha coefficients of symptom and interference scales were each >0.70. The patients had an average of 11 of 13 symptoms of the MDASI. Pain was the most common and severe, followed by feelings of distress and fatigue. Fatigue was the most highly correlated with interference sum. In stepwise multiple regression analysis, the most interfering symptom was fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain was the most common and severe symptom, fatigue was the most important symptom interfering in the lives of terminal cancer patients. In treating terminal cancer patients, healthcare providers should actively intervene to reduce both fatigue and pain.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it