Algunos instrumentos de evaluación utilizados en cuidados paliativos (I): El cuestionario de evaluación de síntomas de Edmontón (ESAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Edmonton System Assessment Symptoms (ESAS) is a simple and easy to administer tool that is useful for both oncological and palliative care patients. The instrument consists of a form with several visual numerical scales which explore different frequent symptoms such as pain, asthenia, anorexia, nausea, somnolence, anxiety, depression, insomnia, global wellbeing, dysnea and otherone choose in each situation. The results from the numerical scales are transcribed into a graph. The ESAS graph offers a clinical profile of symptoms throughout time as a help to better understand the global evolution of the patient as well as the state of each symptom. The Edmonton Palliative Care Group developed the ESAS in 1991 and it has been used mainly for palliative care patients. The ESAS has been validated (in English) for patients in a terminal situation as well as for cancer patients from oncological setting. The ESAS has been used in several studies on symptom control and also in studies addressing the quality of care in palliative programs. This article reviews the literature on the ESAS and introduces a translation into Spanish of both the instrument itself and the instructions of the authors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".