Prevalence and intensity of dyspnea, pain, and agitation among people dying with late stage dementia compared with people dying with advanced cancer: a single-center preliminary study in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As death approaches, there may be similarities in terms of physical symptoms among dementia and cancer. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and intensity of dyspnea, pain, and agitation among people dying with late stage dementia versus those dying with advanced cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis, conducted in a post-acute care facility (PACF) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We reviewed the electronic charts for the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores, from death backwards in time (3 days). METHODS: A retrospective analysis, conducted in a post-acute care facility (PACF) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We reviewed the electronic charts for the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores, from death backwards in time (3 days). RESULTS: We included 57 patients who died with dementia and 54 patients who died with cancer. The prevalence of dyspnea (dementia: n=34, 60% vs. cancer: n=39, 72%; P=0.23), and agitation (dementia: n=7, 13% vs. cancer: n=14, 25%; P=0.17) were statically similar between the two groups. Pain was less common in dementia (dementia: n=19, 34% vs. cancer: n=31, 57%; P=0.02). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with moderate to severe dyspnea (dementia: n=28, 49% vs. cancer: n=33, 61%; P=0.28), and moderate to severe agitation (dementia: n=4, 7% vs. cancer: n=12, 23%; P=0.09). Dementia patients were less likely to experience moderate to severe pain than cancer patients (dementia: n=14, 25% vs. cancer: n=25, 46%; P=0.03). The diagnosis of cancer was independently associated with pain, severe symptoms, and the co-occurrence of dyspnea, pain, and agitation (odds ratio >1). CONCLUSIONS: People dying with dementia and those dying with cancer experienced similar rates of dyspnea, and agitation. However, pain was significantly more prevalent and intense among people dying with cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".