Symptom clusters and survival in Portuguese patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify clusters of symptoms, to determine the patient characteristics associated with identified, and determine their strength of association with survival in patients with advanced cancer (ACPs). Consecutively eligible ACPs not receiving cancer-specific treatment, and referred to a Tertiary Palliative Care Clinic, were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. At first consultation, patients rated 9 symptoms through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (0-10 scale) and 10 others using a Likert scale (1-5). Principal component analysis was used in an exploratory factor analysis to identify. Of 318 ACPs, 301 met eligibility criteria with a median (range) age of 69 (37-94) years. Three SCs were identified: neuro-psycho-metabolic (NPM) (tiredness, lack of appetite, lack of well-being, dyspnea, depression, and anxiety); gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation, hiccups, and dry mouth) and sleep impairment (insomnia and sleep disturbance). Exploratory factor analysis accounted for 40% of variance of observed variables in all SCs. Shorter survival was observed for patients with the NPM cluster (58 vs. 23, P < 0.001), as well as for patients with two or more SCs (45 vs. 21, P = 0.005). In a multivariable model for survival at 30-days, age (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P = 0.008), hospitalization at inclusion (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.47-3.51; P < 0.001), poorer performance status (HR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.24-2.89; P = 0.003), and NPM (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.17-2.31; P = 0.005), were associated with worse survival. Three clinically meaningful SC in patients with advanced cancer were identifiable. The NPM cluster and the presence of two or more SCs, had prognostic value in relation to survival.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".