Measuring symptoms at the end of life using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction and aims The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) has been validated for patient-completed, caregiver-assisted and caregiver-rated scoring of patients' symptoms, enabling symptom recording to continue as patients deteriorate. However, it has not been used to assess symptoms at the end of life specifically. We aimed to assess the utility of ESAS in scoring symptoms in the dying patient. Methods 70 patients were recruited; 40 before and 30 following the introduction of a simple end-of-life (EOL) care tool. Nursing staff were asked to complete 12 hourly ESAS scores from the time the ‘diagnosis of dying’ was made until death. Results 249 of a required 418 (59%) ESAS were completed in the pre- and 140 of 302 (46%) in the post-implementation group. 29/40 (72%) and 25/30 (83%) patients had an ESAS completed in the last 24 h in pre- and post- groups respectively. Comparison of scores for EOL symptoms before and after the introduction of the tool showed less symptom burden in the group where the tool was used. The differences in scores with 95% CIs (0–100 scales) were: pain 12.4 (−2.3 to 27.1); shortness of breath 11.7 (−6.2 to 29.6); anxiety 7.3 (−7.8 to 22.5); nausea 5.9 (−2.6 to 14.5) and secretions 12.3 (−6.7 to 31.3). Conclusion The amount of missing data suggests 12-hourly ESAS scoring was onerous for ward staff and would not therefore capture longitudinal symptom changes. However, ESAS was useful for assessing symptoms in the last 24 h of life, enabling comparison between the two groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".