MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066757063 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2011.0187

High Scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Identify Patients with Self-Defined High Symptom Burden

2011· article· en· W2066757063 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debbie Selby, Anita Chakraborty, Jeff Myers, Refik Saskin, Paolo Mazzotta, Ashlinder Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careDistressEmotional distressScale (ratio)Rating scaleClinical psychologyPsychiatryAnxietyNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terms symptom burden and symptom distress are frequently seen in palliative care literature yet are used in multiple ways ranging from addition of symptom scores to more in-depth assessments of interference in function. Patient input to date has had little role in these varied definitions yet previous reviews have suggested the importance of such input. This mixed qualitative and quantitative prospective study was conducted to seek patient input into the definition of 'symptom burden' and to correlate burden self-ranked scores with symptom scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Results suggest that patients with advanced disease followed by palliative care providers are a group with a high level of self-defined burden. Further, any patient rating one or more symptoms on the ESAS ≥7 is at high risk of self-defined burden and likely to be experiencing significant impact on physical, emotional and social functioning. Further work should look at which aspects of symptom management best promote a lessening of perceived burden.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207