Symptom burden in geriatric hospitalized ESRD patients: Quantifying symptoms to increase nephrologist awareness and use of palliative care consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients have significant symptom burden. Reduced provider awareness of symptoms contributes to underutilization of symptom management resources. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that improved nephrologist awareness of symptoms will lead to symptom improvement. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter intervention study, 27 geriatric ESRD inpatients underwent symptom assessment using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at admission and 1 week post-discharge. Enrollees were sequentially randomized into 2 groups. In group 1, the nephrologist of each individual was provided baseline symptom assessment and not in group 2. Severity ratings were compared between in-hospital and post discharge scores as well as between the 2 groups. Results: 26 patients completed the study; 1 died. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and scores, except increased diabetes in Group 2(P = 0.03). For 70% of the total cohort physicians reported not being surprised if the patient died within a year. Among the total cohort, total ESAS scores improved between initial and follow-up assessments except for depression, anxiety, lack of appetite and nausea. The absolute change in total ESAS scores was 10.9 in group1 and 6.8 in group2 (NS). Among individual symptoms significant improvement was found in pain and itching in group 1 only. Drowsiness and dyspnea improved in both groups. There was one palliative care consult. Conclusions: Our findings reinforce the high symptom burden in geriatric ESRD patients. Residual symptoms post hospitalization and low utilization of palliative care resources is suggestive of a missed opportunity by nephrologists to address the high symptom burden at the inpatient encounter which is selective for sicker patients and/or inadequacy of dialysis to control these symptoms. The trend in improvement in pain and itching in group 1 may indicate better achievable symptom control if physician awareness is increased and simple pharmacological interventions are available.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".