MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313442361 · doi:10.1097/mph.0b013e318230e1fd

Measuring Death-related Anxiety in Advanced Cancer

2011· article· en· W2313442361 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Lo, Sarah Hales, Camilla Zimmermann, Lucia Gagliese, Anne Rydall, Gary Rodin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeath anxietyMedicineDistressPalliative careClinical psychologyAnxietyScale (ratio)Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)CancerPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The alleviation of distress associated with death and dying is a central goal of palliative care, despite the lack of routine measurement of this outcome. In this study, we introduce the Death and Dying Distress Scale (DADDS), a new, brief measure we have developed to assess death-related anxiety in advanced cancer and other palliative populations. We describe its preliminary psychometrics based on a sample of 33 patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. The DADDS broadly captures distress about the loss of time and opportunity, the process of death and dying, and its impact on others. The initial version of the scale has a one-factor structure and good internal reliability. Dying and death-related distress was positively associated with depression and negatively associated with spiritual, emotional, physical, and functional well-being, providing early evidence of construct validity. This distress was relatively common, with 45% of the sample scoring in the upper reaches of the scale, suggesting that the DADDS may be a relevant outcome for palliative intervention. We conclude by presenting a revised 15-item version of the scale for further study in advanced cancer and other palliative populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/OncologySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207