Distrés en adultos con enfermedad oncológica terminal y con enfermedades sistémicas avanzadas no terminales: un estudio prospectivo observacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Distress impacts the quality of life and death of patients with advanced oncologic disease. Objective. To compare the frequency of perceived distress of adults with advanced and systemic oncologic disease, as well as to identify the main affective correlates by means of simple relative frequencies in percentages. Material and Methods. In this descriptive study we evaluated adults with stage IV oncologic disease, who knew their terminal status, who were managed in a palliative care (PC) clinic; and patients with non-terminal advanced disease not attending a PC clinic. The Palliative Performance Scale: PPS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and The Distress Thermometer) were applied to evaluate the frequency and severity of distress. Results. Both groups had a mean of 25.4 ± 35.5 months with the disease. PPS score was lower in patients receiving PC (49.3 ± 19.0) comparing with the non-terminal ones (61.2 ± 17.1) (p < 0.05). The prevalence of distress was 71.4 % (75 % in PC patients, and 70 % in the second group). The main problems perceived by both groups were physical (pain, 41 %) and emotional (sadness, 22 %). Patients not receiving PC perceived more practical problems (economical), as compared with the terminal patients (17.2 % vs. 8.8 %, respectively; p < 0.05). Compared with men, women reported less tranquility, more sorrow and fear (p < 0.05). Conclusions. The prevalence of distress in our patients with advanced disease is among the highest reported in literature. The distinguishing characteristics of patients with terminal disease are different from those with a less advanced process.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".