Palliative care consultation team: symptom relief in first 48 hours of hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the relief of symptoms provided by palliative care consultation team (PCCT) compared to the traditional care team (TC), in patients with advanced cancer in the first 48 hours of hospitalization. METHOD: Allocated to PCCT Group and TC Group, this study assessed 290 patients according to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) within the first 48 hours of hospitalization. The main outcome was a minimum 2-point reduction in symptom intensity. RESULTS: At 48 hours, the PCCT Group had a 2-point reduction in the mean differences (p <0.001) in pain, nausea, dyspnea, and depression; and TC Group, on nausea and sleep impairment (p <0.001). Multiple Logistic Regression found for the PCCT Group a greater chance of pain relief (OR 2.34; CI 1.01-5.43; p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: There was superiority of the PCCT Group for pain relief, dyspnea and depression. There is a need for more studies that broaden the understanding of team modalities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".