Levels of Anxiety and Depression Before Palliative Reirradiation Are Comparable to Those Before First Palliative Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether or not patients scheduled for the reirradiation of a previously treated target volume report reduced levels of anxiety and depression, compared to patients receiving their first course of palliative radiotherapy, e.g., because they are familiar with the process of treatment planning and delivery. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of two groups of patients (37% reirradiated, overall 102 patients), which scored their symptoms before palliative radiotherapy with the Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS). RESULTS: The two groups differed significantly with regard to the incidence of bone metastases, which was higher in the reirradiation group. Mean anxiety and depression scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The same was true for the proportion of patients with symptom scores ≥4. Analyses limited to patients treated for bone metastases revealed no significant differences either. Survival was similar, too. CONCLUSION: The facts that similar ESAS scores of anxiety and depression were observed and that prognosis was comparable suggest that the magnitude of these symptoms might be associated with the presence of incurable cancer itself (or the related somatic symptom burden) rather than the setting in which palliative radiotherapy is performed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".