The Brazilian Version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) Is a Feasible, Valid and Reliable Instrument for the Measurement of Symptoms in Advanced Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES: To develop and validate a Portuguese version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Brazilian patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The ESAS was translated and then back translated into Portuguese in accordance with international guidelines. The final version was approved by an Expert Committee after pilot testing on 24 advanced cancer patients. Subsequently, we evaluated the time to complete the assessment, the number of unanswered items, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity in a sample of 249 advanced cancer patients who completed the ESAS along with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). A total of 90 clinically stable patients were retested after 4 to 96 hours (test-retest reliability), and 80 patients answered the ESAS after 21 (± 7) days to measure scale responsiveness using an anchor-based method. RESULTS: The ESAS was completed in a mean time of only 2.2 minutes. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.861), and the removal of single items did not change the overall alpha value. For convergent validity, Spearman's correlation coefficients between the ESAS symptom scores and the corresponding EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESS symptom scores ranged between 0.520 (95% CI = 0.424-0.605) and 0.814 (95% CI = 0.760-0.856), indicating moderate to strong correlations. Test-retest reliability values were considered adequate, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.758 (95% CI = 0.627-0.843) to 0.939 (95% CI = 0.905-0.960). CONCLUSIONS: ESAS is a feasible, valid and reliable multi-symptom assessment instrument for use in Brazil.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".