Hope, Symptoms, and Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hope is important to patients with cancer. Identifying factors that influence hope is important. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain are reported to impair hope. The objective of this study was to determine whether age, gender, marital status, duration of cancer, symptoms, or symptom burden measured by the sum of severity scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) correlated with hope measured by the Herth Hope Index (HHI). METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer in a palliative care unit participated. Demographics including age, gender, marital status, cancer site, and duration of cancer were collected. Individuals completed the ESAS and HHI. Spearman correlation and linear regression were used to assess associations adjusting for gender (male vs female), age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 years), marital status (married or living with a partner vs other), and duration of cancer (≤ 12 vs > 12 months). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven were participated in the study, of which 55% were female with a mean age of 61 years (standard deviation 11). Hope was not associated with gender, age, marital status, or duration of cancer. In univariable analysis, hope inversely correlated with ESAS score (-0.28), lack of appetite (-0.22), shortness of breath (-0.17), depression (-0.39), anxiety (-0.32), and lack of well-being (-0.33); only depression was clinically relevant. In multivariable analysis, total symptom burden weakly correlated with hope; only depression remained clinically significant. DISCUSSION: This study found correlation between symptom burden and hope was not clinically relevant but was so for depression. CONCLUSION: Among 9 ESAS symptoms, only depression had a clinically relevant correlation with hope.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".