Use of a modified ESAS in cancer patients: a pilot study of patient and staff experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) for monitoring symptoms in oncological palliative care. METHODS: A modified ESAS was delivered daily to 28 patients with advanced cancer. A questionnaire to discover staff members' opinions on the ESAS was delivered at the end of the study. Structured interviews were used to examine patients' opinions on the ESAS. RESULTS: The mean total ESAS score was 28.9 on inclusion day and 25.8 on Day 3 (p=0.531). Eleven of 21 of the staff considered the ESAS to be a 'good' or 'very good' way to obtain information about patients' symptoms. Seventeen of 24 patients who participated in the interview felt that ESAS was easy to fill in, and that there were no missing questions. CONCLUSION: The patients felt that the modified ESAS contained relevant symptoms, and that the questionnaires were easy to fill in. The staff considered the modified ESAS to be a useful instrument for obtaining information about patients' symptom distress. The modified ESAS is a good instrument for use as part of the daily clinical routine, as well as for monitoring symptoms in palliative oncological care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".