Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for Outpatient Symptom Monitoring of Sickle Cell Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although the extension of palliative care methodology to sickle cell disease (SCD) care has been proposed, there is no current standard for symptom assessment. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of integrating the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) into the outpatient management of SCD. METHODS: Seventy-five adult patients presenting for outpatient visits at a comprehensive SCD center were enrolled. Patients completed the ESAS (self-report of 10 symptoms during the last 24 hours) and a survey regarding their opinion of the ESAS at enrollment and follow-up. RESULTS: Pain (P = 0.0272) was the only symptom score that changed significantly between the initial and follow-up visits. In patients with a self-reported pain crisis, pain (P < 0.0001), fatigue (P = 0.0025), depression (P = 0.0458), nausea (P = 0.0384), and symptom distress scores (P = 0.0019) were significantly higher than for patients without a pain crisis. On the initial visit, 92% of all patients agreed or strongly agreed that the ESAS was easy to complete; 83% were satisfied or very satisfied with the ESAS as a way to report symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the ESAS is well received and can be successfully included as part of the longitudinal symptom management strategy for SCD.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it