Symptom Prevalence, Intensity, and Distress in Patients With Inoperable Lung Cancer in Relation to Time of Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine symptom prevalence, intensity, and association with distress in patients with inoperable lung cancer (LC), using time to death as point of reference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive sample of 400 patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 plus a 13-item LC-specific scale and the Thurstone Scale of Symptom Distress-Lung Cancer at six time points during the first year after diagnosis. Patients were divided into subgroups, using data from the time point closest to death (< 1; 1 to 2; > 2 to 3; > 3 to 6; > 6 to 12; and > 12 months before death) for analysis. RESULTS: More than 50% of patients in all subgroups reported problems related to physical, role, and emotional functioning; fatigue; dyspnea; and cough. In general, functional levels were lower and symptoms higher in subgroups closer to death. Notably, clinically relevant differences were also found in role and social functioning and appetite loss between the two groups furthest from death. A consistent pattern was found among the six subgroups, with breathing, pain, and fatigue rated as the symptoms most associated with distress. CONCLUSION: High prevalence of symptoms was found in all subgroups, with higher intensity in subgroups closer to death, indicating a need for prophylactic and proactive symptom management. Less concordance was found among symptom prevalence, intensity, and association with distress in subgroups further from death. Future studies should investigate longitudinal associations between symptoms with low intensity and high distress, and examine their clinical implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".