Health-Care Workers’ Judgments About Pain in Older Palliative Care Patients With and Without Delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delirium complicates pain assessment and management in advanced cancer. This retrospective cohort study compared health-care workers' (HCWs) cancer pain judgments between older patients with advanced cancer with and without a diagnosis of delirium. We reviewed HCWs' daily chart notations about pain presence and good pain control in 149 inpatients with advanced cancer, ≥65 years of age, admitted to a palliative care inpatient unit. Any day with 1 or more notations of pain presence was counted as 1 day with pain; days with notation(s) indicating good pain control were similarly counted. Proportions of days that HCWs judged inpatients to have pain and good pain control were calculated. Patients with and without a delirium diagnosis were compared on both pain outcomes. The moderating effect of highest analgesic class administered was examined. Although most patients received opioid analgesics, mean proportions of days with judged pain were high (39%-60%) and mean proportions of days with judged good pain control were low (<25%) across groups. Among patients receiving either opioid or nonopioid medication, patients with delirium demonstrated lower proportions of days with judged good pain control than patients without delirium ( P ≤ .001), even though groups did not differ in proportions of days with judged pain ( P = .62). Cancer pain is difficult to manage in advanced cancer, especially when delirium is present; however, misinterpretation of delirium symptoms as pain cues may inflate pain judgments. Findings require replication but suggest the need for better pain assessment in older patients with advanced cancer and delirium.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".