The Study on Evaluation and Improvement of Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer by China’s Hospice Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicenter study evaluated the quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer and assessed the improvement in patients' QOL by hospice service program, using McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Hong Kong version (MQOL-HK) questionnaire in China's 32 hospice centers from March to June, 2012. Among 640 recruited cases, data of 630 patients were analyzed. Differences in patients' pre- and posthospice QOL were evaluated. Compared to prehospice results, patients' QOL scores improved significantly in physical, psychological, existential, and support domains after 3 weeks of hospice services. Some items were not thus classified primarily due to cross-cultural adaptation. The MQOL-HK questionnaire could effectively measure QOL in Chinese hospice patients and their QOL could be improved by hospice services. Psychological, existential, and support services should be emphasized during patients' initial 3 weeks of hospice admission.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".