Management of fatigue in palliative cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cancer-related fatigue is one of the most frequent symptoms reported by patients, in all stages of the disease. Fatigue is related to secondary causes, such as anemia, electrolytes disorders, malnutrition or to cancer specific therapy (chemotherapy, radiation or biologic treatment) or is related to the disease itself. Material and method. 120 patients admitted in our institution were evaluated regarding intensity of fatigue, using Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale (ESAS), and treatment of fatigue. Results and discussion. 83.33% of patients evaluated in our study reported different grades of fatigue. Most of them had low and moderate fatigue (69.16%) and only 14.16% reported severe fatigue. Many researches are focused on fatigue therapy - most of them studied the effect of stimulants, corticoids and non-pharmacological interventions. Conclusions. The intensity of this symptom is reported differently by patient and by the physician, and this is a strong reason for assessing fatigue at every clinical evaluation of the patients in palliative settings. The treatment option with very strong recommendation is based on non-pharmacological intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".