Symptom recognition in advanced cancer. A comparison of nursing records against patient self‐rating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the extent to which the symptoms experienced by advanced cancer patients were covered by the nursing records. On the day of the first contact with our palliative care department, a nursing record was taken, and on this or the following day, 56 patients filled in the questionnaires EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). In each patient, the symptomatology reported in the patient-completed questionnaires was compared with the symptomatology mentioned by the nurse in the nursing record. The analysis revealed good concordance concerning pain and poor physical functioning, but patients reported other symptoms or problems much more often than their nurses. Reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. It is suggested that the nurse's knowledge of the patient's symptomatology might gain from more systematic screening or from transfer of information from patient self-assessment questionnaires to the nursing records.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".