The Burden of Symptoms Among Community-Dwelling Older Persons With Advanced Chronic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the frequency and range of symptoms experienced by community-dwelling older persons with advanced chronic disease who are not enrolled in hospice. The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the prevalence of a range of symptoms among older persons with advanced chronic disease and (2) whether the prevalence of symptoms is similar across diagnoses. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of the symptoms reported by 226 community-dwelling persons 60 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, or congestive heart failure (CHF). Symptoms were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. RESULTS: Virtually all participants (86%) experienced at least 1 symptom that rated moderate or severe, and most (69%) experienced 2 or more symptoms. The symptoms reported by the greatest proportion of participants were limited activity (61%), fatigue (47%), and physical discomfort (38%). Participants with COPD had a higher unadjusted mean +/- SD number of moderate or severe symptoms (3.3 +/- 2.1) than did participants with cancer (2.6 +/- 1.8; P = .03) or CHF (2.0 +/- 1.7; P<.001). After we adjusted for sociodemographic factors, compared with participants with CHF, participants with cancer experienced 38% (95% confidence interval, 9%-75%) more moderate or severe symptoms and participants with COPD experienced 71% (95% confidence interval, 37%-114%) more moderate or severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most community-dwelling older persons with advanced COPD, cancer, or CHF experienced multiple moderate or severe symptoms. The clinical care of community-dwelling older persons with advanced chronic illnesses would be enhanced by the identification and alleviation of the range of symptoms they experience.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".