Do rates of mental disorders and existential distress among advanced stage cancer patients increase as death approaches?
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
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the prevalence of mental disorders and related factors increase as advanced cancer patients get closer to death. METHOD: Baseline, cross-sectional data from 289 patients who were assessed prior to their death as part of a multi-site, longitudinal, prospective cohort study of advanced cancer patients. Major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Axis I Disorders. Other factors examined included existential well-being, patient grief about their illness, physical symptom burden, terminal illness acknowledgment, peacefulness, and the wish to live or die. RESULTS: Closeness to death was not associated with higher rates of mental disorders. Patients closer to death exhibited increased existential distress and physical symptom burden, were more likely to acknowledge being terminally ill, and were more likely to report an increased wish to die. CONCLUSION: Results do not provide support for the common clinical assumption that the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders increases as death nears. However, patients' level of physical distress, acknowledgment of terminal illness, and wish to die, possibly reflecting acceptance of dying, increased as death approached. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm individual changes in rates of mental disorder as patients approach death.
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