A study to assess the feasibility of introducing early palliative care in ambulatory patients with advanced lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early palliative care is beneficial in advanced lung cancer patients. We aimed to assess the feasibility of introducing early palliative care in ambulatory advanced lung cancer patients in an Indian tertiary cancer center. METHODOLOGY: In a longitudinal, single-arm, and single-center study, fifty patients were recruited and followed up every 3-4 weeks for 6 months, measuring the symptom burden using Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and quality of life (QoL) with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-QoL tools. The primary end point of feasibility was that at least 60% of the patients should complete 50% of the planned palliative care visits and over 50% of the patients should complete QoL questionnaires. Analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20. RESULTS: < 0.05). Scores on QoL functioning scales improved during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We did not meet the feasibility criteria for the introduction of early palliative care in our advanced lung cancer patients in a resource-limited country.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".