Outcomes of supportive/palliative care (SPC) for advanced cancer patients (AdCa) in a general public hospital and a comprehensive cancer center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
208 Background: AdCa experience severe physical, psychosocial and existential distress. Their needs might not be met only by standard care. We compared outcomes of AdCa receiving SPC at a General Public Hospital (GPH) and at a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC). Methods: We reviewed 364 consecutive AdCa(182 at GPH and 182 at CCC). AdCa were managed by SPC-specialists with common clinical-pathways. We assessed symptoms(Edmonton Symptom Assessment System:ESAS) and outcomes at consult and first follow-up. Results: Race was White, African-American, and Hispanic in 42(23%), 70(39%), 63(35%) at GPH vs. 112(64%, p<0.0001), 30(17%, p<0.0001), 20(11%, p<0.0001) at CCC, respectively. Age, gender and cancer diagnoses were similar at both sites. 98(54%) at GPH vs. 181(99%) at CCC reported to have some health-insurance(p<0.0001). Symptoms at consult-time at GPH and CCC: Pain 133(85%) vs. 151(91%,p=0.0586); Fatigue 127(80%) vs. 153(94%,p<0.0001); Nausea 69(44%) vs. 89(55%,p=0.0438); Depression 79(51%) vs. 109(68%,p=0.0015); Anxiety 72(46%) vs. 121(75%,p<0.0001); Drowsiness 78(50%) vs. 119(76%, p<0.0001); Appetite 89(56%) vs. 146(91%, p<0.0001); Dyspnea 72(46%) vs. 107(65%,p=0.0004); Sleep 90(59%) vs. 142(88%,p<0.0001); and Well-Being 95(63%) vs. 132(93%,p<0.0001). Both SPC provided multiple not different interventions: opioid-management, medication review for polypharmacy, bowel-regimen, antiemetics, and interdisciplinary counseling. At follow-up ESAS-improvement(decrease ≥2 points) was: pain 21/80(26%) at GPH vs. 43/107(40%) at CCC(p=0.0469), anxiety 18/75(24%) vs. 40/98(41%,p=0.0202); appetite 15/74(20%) vs. 37/90(41%,p=0.0043); sleep 20/74(27%) vs. 42/95(44%,p=0.0215); nausea 23/77(30%) vs. 35/97(36%,p=0.3879); depression 18/74(24%) vs. 30/94(32%,p=0.2796). Median Time(range) from consult-to-follow-up at GPH 21 days(0-427) vs. 14 days(1-275,p=0.032), and from consult-to-death at GPH 53 days(1-699) vs. 51 days(1-898,p=0.8473). Conclusions: AdCa at GPH and CCC had frequent and severe-symptoms. Response-rate was lower and follow-up less-frequent at GPH. SPC needs to be more frequent and more resources are needed at GPH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".