Change in symptom burden within one day of palliative care consultation in a cohort of gynecologic oncology inpatients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
28 Background: Change in symptom burden after inpatient palliative care consultation for symptom management in gynecologic oncology patients has not been described. Our objective was to evaluate the magnitude and time course of change in symptom burden after palliative care (PC) consultation in a cohort of gynecologic oncology inpatients. Methods: Women with a gynecologic malignancy and a PC consultation for symptom management between 3/1/12 and 2/28/13 were identified. Charts were reviewed for demographics and disease characteristics. PC provider reports of patient symptom intensity on a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System were retrospectively reviewed. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and two sample test of proportions to compare prevalence of moderate to severe symptom intensity on the day of consultation to the day after consultation. Results: Over 12 months, there were 172 PC consultations for symptom management involving 123 unique patients. The median age was 58 and most common cancer was ovarian (44%), followed by cervical (26%) and uterine (24%). Prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms on the day of consultation is outlined below. There were statistically significant decreases in prevalence of moderate to severe symptom intensity within one day of PC consultation for pain, anorexia, fatigue and shortness of breath (SOB) (see table). Conclusions: PC consultation is associated with significant improvements in symptoms within one day of consultation. Palliative care consultation may be an effective tool for symptom management during even very short hospitalizations and should be considered early in the hospitalization to effect timely symptom relief. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".