Pictograma de Fadiga: uma alternativa para avaliação da intensidade e impacto da fadiga
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo foi validar o Fatigue Pictogram para uso no Brasil. Os dados foram coletados em quatro ambulatórios de oncologia de São Paulo (SP) e na Escola de Enfermagem da USP. A amostra de conveniência envolveu 584 pacientes com câncer, 184 acompanhantes e 189 estudantes de graduação enfermagem, que responderam ao Pictograma de Fadiga, ao Inventário de Depressão de Beck (IDB) e Escala de Karnofsky (KPS). Foram feitos testes de validade e confiabilidade. O Teste-reteste mostrou que o instrumento tem boa estabilidade. O primeiro item do Pictograma de Fadiga discriminou estudantes de cuidadores de pacientes, mas não pacientes de cuidadores. O segundo item discriminou todos os grupos. Observou-se adequada validade convergente (fadiga e depressão) e divergente (fadiga e Karnofsky). O Pictograma de Fadiga é válido, confiável e fácil de usar para avaliar fadiga em câncer, mas necessita ajustes para uso em pessoas saudáveis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".