Frequency of Symptom Distress and Poor Prognostic Indicators in Palliative Cancer Patients Admitted to a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit, Hospices, and Acute Care Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Edmonton Regional Palliative Care Program was established to increase access to palliative care for terminal cancer patients in the region. Inpatient care is delivered, in decreasing order to distress, at the tertiary palliative care unit, by consult teams in acute care facilities, and in hospices. We reviewed the admission data for all patients discharged from the program between November 1, 1997, and October 31, 1998, in order to determine if demographical and clinical variables suggested appropriate use of the three levels of care. Patients admitted to the tertiary palliative care unit were significantly younger than those admitted to acute care of hospices (61 years versus 68 years and 71 years respectively, p < 0.0001), had a higher frequency of positive screening for alcoholism in the CAGE questionnaire (27% versus 16% and 14% respectively, p < 0.0001), and a higher frequency of poor prognostic pain syndromes as compared to acute care admissions (87% versus 65%, p < 0.0001). Overall, frequency of symptoms and severe symptoms was significantly higher in patients admitted to the palliative care unit than those admitted to the other two settings. Our results suggest that patients with demographic and clinical indications of higher distress are more frequently admitted to the tertiary palliative care unit. The clinical tools are useful predictors of utilization that can be used for monitoring health care delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".