MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores in epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma (eMPM) patients undergoing palliative systemic therapy.

2019· article· en· W2991603022 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristen Dietrich, Luna Jia Zhan, Michael Herman, Subiksha Nagaratnam, Kathryn Corbett, Devalben Patel, Katrina Hueniken, Wei Xu, M. Catherine Brown, Marc de Perrot, John Cho, Natasha B. Leighl, Penelope Ann Bradbury, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Palliative careInternal medicineNauseaSystemic therapyAnxietyPhysical therapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

96 Background: Palliative chemotherapy, the mainstay for incurable eMPM, is offered to patients with good standing performance status (ECOG 0-1). We determined the proportion of eMPM patients experiencing moderate (Mod) to severe (Sev) symptoms while on palliative chemotherapy using ESAS symptom scores at diagnosis and during first and subsequent lines of systemic therapy. Methods: ESAS scores (0=no symptom; 10=worst symptom) were routinely captured in eMPM patients at Princess Margaret (Toronto, Canada). Retrospective chart review collected ESAS, clinical, treatment and outcome data. ESAS scores and proportions were summarized within baseline, firstline, and subsequent lines of therapy. Mod symptom was defined as ESAS scores of 4-6, and Sev as 7-10. ESAS scores between treatment lines were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U tests. Locally weighted smoothing (LOESS) plots assessed ESAS scores over treatment duration. Results: Of 37 palliative eMPM patients, the most frequent baseline symptoms were fatigue (33% Mod, 25% Sev), dyspnea (27% Mod; 17% Sev), anxiety (21% Mod; 21% Sev) and depression (34% Mod; 4% Sev). Overall well-being was poor in 45% of patients (31% Mod; 14% Sev). Compared to baseline, patients on firstline therapy reported increased pain ( p = 0.002), poor appetite ( p = 0.005) and nausea ( p = 0.02); decreased depression ( p = 0.03) and anxiety ( p = 0.006); and stable well-being ( p = 0.27). In patients well enough for subsequent therapy, patients reported reduced drowsiness ( p = 0.01) and improved overall well-being ( p = 0.04) compared to firstline therapy. LOESS plot patterns were similar between firstline and subsequent lines of treatment. Conclusions: eMPM patients had high symptom scores at the time of diagnosis. However, patients’ depression and anxiety decreased when starting initial treatment, and general well-being was stable. Of patients fit enough for subsequent lines of therapy, there were improvements in drowsiness and overall well-being. When selectively used, palliative systemic therapy of all lines are associated with some improved symptoms, but pain, poor appetite, and nausea need to be monitored and managed more effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOccupational and environmental lung diseases→French-language works237,207→