Quality of Life and Psychological Distress of Lung Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancer often experience multiple symptoms associated with both the disease itself and the treatment. The disease and therapy-related adverse effects may lead to poor quality of life (QoL) and increased psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate the QoL and psychological distress of patients with lung cancer. The relationship between these two aspects was also an area of focus. METHODS: This was a quantitative descriptive study. Data collection was done using a self-complementary tool. The data were collected between February and March 2020. The sample consisted of 135 patients with lung cancer who were undergoing chemotherapy in 1-day clinic in Athens (a sample of convenience). RESULTS: Regarding the QoL of our sample, we observed that the mean score of the physical health component of SF-12 was 38.17 ± 9.94 and of the mental health component was 45.63 ± 11.80. As regards the psychological distress of our sample, we observed that the mean score for depression was 4.55 ± 5.04, for anxiety was 3.84 ± 4.17 and for stress was 5.21 ± 5.01. CONCLUSION: As is clear from the results, lung cancer patients reported poor QoL and increased rates of psychological distress.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".