Capacidade funcional de pacientes com indicação de cuidados paliativos na atenção primária
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients indicated for palliative care may have losses in functional capacity and quality of life, but there is little information about these conditions in primary health care. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the functional and symptomatic aspects of individuals indicated for palliative care in primary care. METHODS: This cross-sectional descriptive study involved six family health teams from three basic health units in Londrina, Paraná, Brazil that indicated patients with palliative care needs. The patients were assessed with the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire. RESULTS: 73 patients (30 men and 43 women) whose mean age was 77.2 ± 12.1 years were included. Dementia and cerebrovascular diseases were the most frequent conditions, with 20 (27%) and 19 (26%) patients, respectively. The mean KPS score was 47.9 ± 13.9 points (44 ± 11.3 points for men and 51 ± 11.3 for women), with a significant difference between the sexes (p = 0.023). Cancer patients had better functionality than those with neurological diseases. The ESAS, whose mean score was below 3 points (mild intensity), indicated that the most frequent symptoms were impaired well-being, pain, fatigue and drowsiness. Patients without caregivers had better functional status, but greater pain and fatigue intensity. CONCLUSION: All patients had some functional limitations, and those with neurological diseases were the most affected. The symptoms were generally mild. The presence of caregivers may positively influence symptom control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".