Clinically Important Improvement in the Intensity of Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common symptom experienced by patients with cancer. Clinically important improvement in the intensity of fatigue in palliative care patients has not been well established. We reviewed the data from 3 clinical trials of fatigue in 194 patients receiving palliative care treatment. Patients completed the Functional Assessment for Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at baseline and day 8 and their global perception of fatigue improvement (Global benefit score [GBS]: 1 = not beneficial, 7 = greatly important] during day 8. A GBS of 4 or more (moderate improvement, consistently beneficial) was considered a clinically significant improvement. Change scores in the ESAS and FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 were compared to the GBS greater than 4. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were also derived for ESAS and FACIT-F change scores for a GBS greater than 4, greater than 5, and greater than 6. Results showed the mean patient age was 56 (+/-12) years, and 37% were men. A reduction of approximately 10 points in FACIT-F (sensitivity = 73%, specificity = 78%, area under the curve = 0.82) and 4 points in ESAS fatigue (sensitivity = 66%, specificity = 72%, area under the curve = 0.78) score was best able to predict a clinically important improvement (GBS >/= 4). We were able to characterize the relationship between FACIT-F and ESAS scores and patients' global perception of improvement but further studies are needed to validate our findings.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".