Association between feeling of well-being and overall survival in advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal patients receiving palliative care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
199 Background: The aim of this study was to determine the association between feeling of well-being (FWB, 0= best, 10= worst) and overall survival in advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal patients who were referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic (OPC). We also determined the predictors of severity of moderate or severe - feeling of well-being in advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal patients presenting to palliative care. Methods: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with incurable advanced lung cancer and non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer presenting to OPC. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores were obtained at the initial visit between from Jan. 1, 2008-Dec. 31, 2013. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Clinically significant FWB was defined as ≥4/10. Overall Survival (OS) was calculated from the time of diagnosis of advanced cancer to death or last contact. Univariate analyses were performed and only significant variables were included in multivariate regression analysis to determine factors associated with severity OF FWB. Results: A total of 826 evaluable patients were analyzed (median age, 62 years; 57% male). Median ESAS FWB scores was 5 IQR (3-7). Worse FWB was significantly associated with OS (months) 6.33 (5.03, 8) vs 4.2 (3.37, 4.67) P=0.0003, from the time of diagnosis of advanced cancer. The final model of the Backwards Stepwise regression of factors associated with OS found that FWB (HR 1.09, p=0.3) was not an independent predictor of OS. ESAS FWB was significantly associated with ESAS fatigue (OR 2.31, p<0.001); anxiety (OR 1.98, p<0.001); anorexia (OR 2.31, p<0.001); CAGE positivity [alcoholism] (HR 1.80, p=0.008); and family distress (HR 1.93, p=0.002). Conclusions: Worse ESAS FWB showed univariate association with OS but it does not appear to be an independent predictor of OS when controlling for other known predictors. ESAS FWB was significantly associated with fatigue, anxiety, anorexia, CAGE positivity, and family distress, suggests that ESAS FWB may be a multidimensional screening measure for patient reported health related quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".