Symptoms, Psychological Distress, Social Support, and Quality of Life of Chinese Patients Newly Diagnosed With Gastrointestinal Cancer
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
This study aims to describe symptoms, psychological distress, social support, and quality of life of Chinese patients newly diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract (GIT) cancer, and to identify the extent to which demographic, physical, and psychosocial factors predict their quality of life. A convenience sample of 146 newly diagnosed GIT cancer patients recruited from 3 major hospitals in Shanghai completed a self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to obtain demographic and medical data and measures of symptoms, psychological distress, social support, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and global quality of life (GQoL). Measures developed in English were translated into Chinese using the procedure advocated by WHO. The results showed that the most common signs and symptoms reported were fatigue, pain, and weight loss; 28% of the patients were depressed; and overall, patients had a moderate quality of life. Comparative analyses found some difference on measures for demographic and diagnostic subgroups. Depression, symptom distress, and social support accounted for 44% of the total variance for HRQoL, while perceived financial difficulty and symptom distress accounted for 20% of the total variance for GQoL. Findings from this research give insights into the importance of quality of life assessment, symptom management, and intervention to improve the quality of life of Chinese cancer patients. It also raises questions about measures of quality of life that are culturally relevant.
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