Dyspnea in Hospitalized Advanced Cancer Patients: Subjective and Physiologic Correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unclear if physiologic measures are useful for assessing dyspnea. We examined the association among the subjective rating of dyspnea according to patients with advanced cancer, caregivers and nurses, and various physiologic measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer hospitalized at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We asked patients, caregivers, and nurses to assess the patients' dyspnea at the time of study enrollment independently using a numeric rating scale (0=none, 10=worst). Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) ratings, causes of dyspnea, vitals, and Respiratory Distress Observation Scale [RDOS] ratings were collected. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were enrolled in the study: average age 62 (range 20-98), female 47%, lung cancer 37%, and oxygen use 57%. The median RDOS rating was 2/16 (interquartile range 1-3) and the number of potential causes was 3 (range 2-4), with pleural effusion (n=166, 56%), pneumonia (n=144, 48%), and lung metastasis (n=125, 42%) being the most common. The median intensity of patients' dyspnea at the time of assessment was 3 (interquartile range 0-6) for patients, 4 (interquartile range 1-6) for caregivers, and 2 (interquartile range 0-3) for bedside nurses. Patients' expression of dyspnea correlated moderately with caregivers' (r=0.68, p<0.001) and nurses' (r=0.50, p<0.001) assessments, and weakly with RDOS (r=0.35, p<0.001), oxygen level (r=0.32, p<0.001), and the number of potential causes (r=0.19, p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, patients' dyspnea was only independently associated with ESAS dyspnea (p=0.002) and dyspnea as assessed by caregivers (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' level of dyspnea was weakly associated with physiologic measures. Caregivers' perception may be a useful surrogate for dyspnea assessment.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".