MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Avaliação do instrumento Edmonton Symptom Assessment System em cuidados paliativos: revisão integrativa

2010· review· pt· W2167759747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista gaúcha de enfermagem · 2010
Typereview
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Palliative carePortugueseMEDLINEAdaptation (eye)NursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospice Care (HC) is given to patients out of therapeutic possibilities of cure,focusing on symptoms control and life quality. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is an instrument to assess and monitor nine physical and psychological symptoms in patients in HC. The study aims to perform an integrative review on the assessment of health professionals and/or patients regarding the use of ESAS in cancer patients in Hospice Care. Eight papers have been localized at Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) between 1998 and 2009. The results displayed that although there are few studies on this topic, the ESAS is a valid instrument to detect and monitor symptoms in HC, presenting some limitations. The results led to the importance of the study continuity in translation and cross-cultural adaptation of this scale to Brazilian Portuguese.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it