Cognition, functionality and symptoms in patients under home palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the degree of cognition, functionality, presence of symptoms and medications prescribed for patients under palliative home care. METHOD: Descriptive, cross-sectional study where 55 patients under palliative home care were interviewed. Cognition was evaluated using the Mini-Mental state examination (MM), with patients being separated into two groups: with preserved cognitive ability (MM>24), or altered (MM <24). The functionality was verified by the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) and the patients were divided into two groups: PPS≤50 and PPS≥60. The symptoms presence was evaluated by ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) being considered as mild (ESAS 1-3), moderate (ESAS 4-6) or severe (ESAS 7-10) symptoms. Medications prescribed to control the symptoms were registered. Statistical analysis used Student's t test (p <0.05). RESULTS: Most of the 55 patients were women (63.6%), 70.9% of these had MM> 24, 83.6% had PPS <50 and 78.2% presented chronic non-neoplastic degenerative disease. There was a significant relationship between PPS≤50 and MM≤24. Symptoms were present in 98% of patients. Asthenia was more frequently reported and was not treated in 67% of the cases. Severe pain was present in 27.3%: 46% without medication and 13% with medication, if necessary. Most patients with severe dyspnea used oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the analysed patients had their cognition preserved, presented low functionality and 98% reported the presence of symptoms. Severe pain was present in almost 1/3 of the patients without effective treatment. Re-evaluate palliative home care is suggested to optimize patient's quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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; 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".