Use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in patients with advanced cancer referred to an embedded palliative care clinician.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
96 Background: Physical and emotional symptoms are highly prevalent in patients with advanced cancers and contribute to overall distress level and decreased self-reported quality of life. Oncology organizations and accrediting bodies now routinely recommend universal distress screening among patients with advanced cancers. Palliative and supportive care clinicians play an important role in implementing symptom and distress screening in cancer centers. Methods: As part of an embedded palliative care nurse practitioner (PC-NP) intervention within a large ambulatory oncology clinic, patients with advanced breast, GU, GI and lung cancer were screened for physical and emotional symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and treated appropriately including referral to psychology-based supportive care clinic for moderate to severe anxiety and depression or clinician-identified need. We used pre-test post-test methods to see if symptoms improved after enrollment in an embedded palliative oncology program. Results: Sixty-eight patients were screened at initial visit and 41 had follow-up screening during the first 13 months of the program with a part-time PC-NP. Only the 41 patients who had both an initial and a follow-up visit were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed using the ESAS at initial visit and at a follow-up visit an average of 5.9 weeks later (RANGE 1.0-30.6), and significant reductions were found in self-reported pain (4.0 v. 3.0), shortness of breath (3.0 v. 2.1), lack of appetite (2.8 v. 2.1), and overall well-being (4.7 v 3.8) (p < 0.05). Emotional symptoms (anxiety and depression) also decreased but were not statistically significant. Aggregate scores (emotional symptoms plus physical symptoms plus well-being) demonstrated a 6 point reduction in severity (26.2 baseline to 20.3 at follow-up, p = 0.17). Conclusions: These findings are suggestive of improvement in cancer-related symptoms and distress after enrollment in an embedded palliative oncology program. More rigorous study designs are needed to better understand the impact of the intervention on symptom management.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".