Comparison of Symptom Burden among Patients Referred to Palliative Care with Hematologic Malignancies versus those with Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic malignancies have reduced and later access to palliative care services (APCS) than do those with solid tumors. It is unclear whether these patients develop a high symptom burden at the end of life that requires special palliative care interventions. The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine whether symptoms are less severe in patients with hematologic than in those with solid malignancies on APCS and whether symptom severity is associated with early APCS. METHODS: We studied the records of consecutive patients with hematologic and solid malignancies at their first palliative care consultation (PC1). We collected information about demographics, cancer type, date of PC1, and the interval from PC1 to death (PC1-D). We reviewed the charts for the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment System (ESAS) and presence of delirium. RESULTS: We included 250 patients (125 with each type of malignancy). Median pain and drowsiness were 4 (3-5) and 7 (5-10) among hematologic compared to 5 (4-6, p=0.043) and 5 (3-6, p=0.0008) among patients with solid malignancies, respectively. Delirium was detected in 51 of 125 (41%) hematologic versus 20 of 125 (16%) solid (p=0.0001). Median PC1-D was 13 days for hematologic versus 46 days for solid (p=0.0001). There was no correlation between PC1-D and pain (r= -0.117, p=0.4 for hematologic and r=0.09, p=0.37 for solid), dyspnea (r= -0.02, p=0.85 for hematologic and r=0.09, p=0.42 for solid) or the Symptom Distress Score (r= -0.047, p=0.72 for hematologic and r= -0.093, p=0.32 for solid). CONCLUSIONS: Hematologic patients had increased delirium and drowsiness and later APCS The overall symptom severity was similar in both groups of patients and did not correlate with early APCS. Future prospective studies are needed to better define APCS patterns in this group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".