A Comparative Study of Variables That Have an Impact on Noncancer End-of-Life Diagnoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By way of analysis of variance, this secondary analysis compared three groups of noncancer home hospice patients (AIDS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS],and other) for psychological correlates of adaptation and well-being, pain, and physical function, as measured by the Life Closure Scale (LCS), the Affect Balance Scale, the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire Part I, and the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. The sample included 10 AIDS patients (Group 1), 6 ALS patients (Group 2), and 5 patients with other noncancer, end-stage diseases (Group 3). A significant difference was found between Group 2 (ALS) and Group 3 (other) on the LCS, F(2, 18) = 4.3, p =.03. Scheffe and Duncan range post hoc tests and at test at the p</=.05 level (t9 = 4.1, p =.003) confirmed the finding. No significant group differences were found among the ALS, AIDS, and other groups in measures of psychological well-being, pain, and physical function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".