Inquadramento e gestione dei sintomi nel cardiopatico candidato a cure palliative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burden symptom in advanced heart failure highly affects quality of life of both patients and caregivers, leading to severe functional limitation and social isolation. Symptoms in the advanced phases of the disease are numerous and often underestimated and undertreated. This negatively affects not only quality of life, but also increases hospitalizations, reduces therapeutic adherence, impairs cardiac function and leads to reduced survival. When symptom control cannot be achieved only with specific cardiologic therapy, optimal care should shift to a combination of life-prolonging and symptom-relief approach, possibly to be initiated as soon as advanced phases are detected. Optimal treatment of severe and invalidating symptoms requires a multi-modal and multi-dimensional approach, as pharmacological therapy represents only a part of a global evaluation that should include spiritual and psycho-social factors, potentially influencing symptom perception. Assessment therefore should rely on multi-modal and multi-dimensional patient-centered score models, such as the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), or the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS).Pain, dyspnea, depression, fatigue and less frequent but distressing symptoms, including gastrointestinal disorders (nausea, vomiting, fecal impaction, hiccups), cough, itching, skin xerosis and restless legs syndrome, will be analyzed, and evidence of best palliative practice will be discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".