Palliative versus nonpalliative patients’ perceptions of the effect of alcohol consumption on clinical outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
199 Background: Little is known about the perceptions of palliative patients on the impact of continued alcohol consumption after a cancer diagnosis and whether they are similar to the perceptions of patients who are considered potentially curative. Methods: Patients with diverse cancer subtypes were surveyed at a comprehensive cancer centre, cross-sectionally. Specifically, palliative and non-palliative cancer patients were asked about their perceptions on the benefits/harms of continued drinking on cancer-related quality of life, fatigue, and overall survival, and whether they had received information on their alcohol consumption from their health care providers. Palliative status was established by chart review. Results: Of 1049 patients, 48% were male, with median age of 58 (18-98) years; cancer sites included gastrointestinal, genitourinary, breast, thoracic, hematologic, and others; 16% were classified as being palliative at the time of survey; and 14% reported receiving counselling information on alcohol use sometime after their cancer diagnosis. Compared to curative patients, palliative patients were more likely to perceive continued alcohol consumption as harmful to their fatigue (OR=1.39, P=0.05) and survival (OR=1.45, P=0.03), but less so on quality of life (OR=1.16, P=0.35). When compared to those who had not been counselled, informed patients were twice as likely (OR=2.01, P<0.01) to perceive continued drinking as harmful to their levels of fatigue, although there was less of a difference in their perception of quality of life (OR =1.39, P=0.20) and survival (OR=1.40, P=0.19). Conclusions: Palliative patients are more likely to perceive continued alcohol consumption as harmful to their fatigue and overall survival, when compared to non-palliative patients, especially after receiving counselling. Given the lack of data on the benefits or harm of mild-moderate alcohol use and a strong emphasis on quality of life, future research should focus on effects of alcohol in palliative patients, and there should be improved education to both providers and patients on regarding the current lack of information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".