Room for improvement? A quality-of-life assessment in patients with malignant bowel obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective study followed 35 patients admitted to hospital with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) to evaluate quality of life (QOL). Subjects completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) at recruitment, and at one week, one month and three months.The highest ranked ESAS scores at recruitment (which was generally 18-36 hours post admission to hospital) included loss of appetite (median=7.5), fatigue (6.5) and overall well-being (6.0). The total ESAS score improved by 7.5, 11.5 and 11.0 points respectively at one week, one month and three months (p<0.05, p<0.01, NS).RSCL median scores for physical and psychological subscales were high at baseline (36.2, 42.9) and improved significantly at one week and one month (p<0.05). Psychological functioning appeared to be worsening by three months and at no time did activity level improve significantly. The overall QOL score was extremely poor at baseline (6.0 median) improving to 3.3 at one month (median fall=1.0, p<0.05) and 3.4 at three months.Further work should address the lack of improvement in activity and apparent deterioration in psychological functioning after one month.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".