Factors associated with patient-reported subjective well-being among advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the factors associated with a feeling of well-being using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)-Feeling of Well-Being item (ESAS-FWB; where 0 = best and 10 = worst) among advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer patients who were referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic (OPCC). We also examined the association of performance on the ESAS-FWB with overall survival (OS). METHOD: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with incurable advanced lung cancer and non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer presenting to an OPCC from 1 January 2008 through to 31 December 2013. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize patient characteristics. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with ESAS-FWB severity. We also examined the association of ESAS-FWB scores and survival using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 826 evaluable patients were analyzed (median age = 62 years, 57% male). Median ESAS-FWB scores were five times the interquartile range (5 × IQR; 3-7). ESAS-FWB score was found to be significantly associated with ESAS fatigue (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001); anxiety (OR = 1.98, p < 0.001); anorexia (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001); cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye opener (CAGE) score (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.80, p = 0.008); and family caregiver distress (HR = 1.93, p = 0.002). A worse ESAS-FWB score was significantly associated with decreased OS (r = -0.18, p < 0.001). However, ESAS-FWB score was not independently associated with OS in the final multivariate model (p = 0.35), which included known major clinical prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Worse ESAS-FWB scores were significantly associated with high scores on ESAS fatigue, anorexia, anxiety, CAGE, and family caregiver distress. More research is necessary to understand how palliative care interventions are capable of improving the contributory factors related to ESAS-FWB score.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".