Financial distress in patients with advanced cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the frequency and severity of financial distress (FD) and its association with quality of life (QOL) and symptoms among patients with advanced cancer in France. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, 143 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. QOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer General (FACT-G) and symptoms assessed using Edmonton Assessment System (ESAS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). FD was assessed using a self-rated numeric scale from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Seventy-three (51%) patients reported having FD. Patients reported having FD were most likely to be younger (53.8 (16,7SD) versus 62 (10.5SD), p<0.001), single (33 (62%) versus 40(44%), p = 0.03) and had a breast cancer (26 (36%), p = 0.024). Patients with FD had a lower FACT-G score (59 versus 70, p = 0.005). FD decreased physical (14 versus 18, p = 0.008), emotional (14 versus 16, p = 0.008), social wellbeing (17 versus 19, p = 0.04). Patients with FD had higher HADS-D (8 versus 6 p = 0.007) and HADS-A (9 versus 7, p = 0.009) scores. FD was linked to increased ESAS score (59 (18SD) versus 67 (18SD), p = 0.005) and spiritual suffering (22(29SD) versus 13(23SD), p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: The high rate of patient-reported FD was unexpected in our studied population, as the French National Health Insurance covers specific cancer treatments. The FD was associated with a poorer quality of life. Having a systematic assessment, with a simple tool, should lead to future research on interventions that will increase patients' QOL.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it