The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991–2006)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review was to identify and critique validation studies focusing on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a commonly used symptom assessment tool for advanced cancer and palliative patients. METHODS: Using a comprehensive literature search, the authors identified and screened 87 publications. Thirteen articles were selected for in-depth review, based on the following inclusion criteria: psychometric studies with a primary focus on the ESAS, 1991--2006 publication dates and peer-reviewed English language publications. RESULTS: Most studies involved cancer patients (n = 11). The ESAS format varied across studies, in terms of scale format, item number, item selection and language. Studies focused on gathering reliability estimates (n = 8), content validity evidence (n = 1), concurrent validity evidence (n = 5), predictive validity evidence (n = 1), and sensitivity and/or specificity (n = 3). None of these studies involved patients' perspectives as a source of validity evidence. DISCUSSION: The use of varying instrument formats and limited psychometric evidence support the need for further ESAS validation studies, including the involvement of patients.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it