Longitudinal validation of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) in haemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an important outcome in the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and appears to be highly associated with patient self-report of symptom burden. This study examines the longitudinal validity of the modified Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) to determine the impact of change in symptom burden on the change in HRQL of haemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: 261 haemodialysis patients completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF) and the ESAS at baseline and at 6 months. RESULTS: The change in overall symptom distress score was strongly correlated with the change in KDQOL-SF subscales symptom/problem list (R=-0.73, P<0.01), effects of kidney disease (R=-0.53, P<0.01), and burden of kidney disease (R=-0.46, P<0.01) as well as overall physical health composite (R=-0.58, P<0.01) and overall mental health composite (R=-0.68, P<0.01). The change in symptom burden, as described by the ESAS, accounted for 46% of the change in the mental HRQL and 34% of the change in the physical HRQL. There was no correlation between baseline demographics, comorbidity or changes in biochemical markers with changes in either the ESAS or HRQL scores. CONCLUSION: The modified ESAS is a simple, valid tool for the longitudinal assessment of physical and psychological symptom burden in ESRD and is responsive to change in HD patients. The use of this symptom assessment scale and improved management of patient symptoms would be expected to positively impact HD patients' HRQL.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".