Changes in symptom burden associated with exposure to outpatient palliative care in an integrated health system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
204 Background: Patients with serious illnesses are often referred to palliative care (PC) for symptom management, advance care planning, and goals-of-care discussions. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the symptom burden (SB) and short-term changes in patients receiving outpatient PC from nine clinics within an integrated health system in Southern California. Methods: We included 3,007 adults with cancer who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at the start of PC from 1/1/14 - 6/30/18. Patients were identified at baseline as having either a high SB if they scored ≥ 4 on at least two out of nine symptoms or low SB if they did not meet this threshold. We compared baseline socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between high SB and low SB patients. We also examined changes in the ESAS for patients with a follow-up survey at 30 ± 14 days after baseline. Results: Patients with high SB at presentation to PC tended to be younger and had comparable co-morbidities to patients with low SB. Availability of a follow-up ESAS was low but similar between groups (18%). Changes in the ESAS met published minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for the high SB patients whereas low SB patients showed worsening symptoms. Conclusions: We observed similar symptom burden in this community-based oncology patient population as other studies from specialized cancer centers. Greater effort is needed to standardize timing of follow-up assessments and integrating personalized symptom goals.[Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".