Assessment of Perioperative Symptoms of Patients with Gastric Cancer Using The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised Japanese version (ESAS-r-J)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the perioperative symptoms of gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised Japanese version (ESAS-r-J), which is a nine-item visual analogue scale to rate patient symptoms. Methods Between February 2015 and March 2017, 246 patients completed the ESAS-r-J before and after gastrectomy. We evaluated the changes in the prevalence and score of each ESAS-r-J item before and after gastrectomy. In addition, we compared them after gastrectomy between patients who underwent the different approaches. Results Before gastrectomy, anxiety and well-being were the most prevalent items (80%), followed by depression (45%). After gastrectomy, well-being was the most prevalent item (87%), followed by pain (68%). The prevalence of anxiety decreased from 80% to 59% (P = 0.002). The depression and anxiety scores decreased from 1.6 to 1.1 (P < 0.001) and from 2.6 to 1.7 (P = 0.002), respectively. The total score was higher in patients who underwent open surgery than in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (16.9 vs 12.9 ; P = 0.031). Conclusions After gastrectomy, psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety improved despite more physical complaints than before gastrectomy. The laparoscopy was less invasive. It is very important to take care of psychological aspects before gastrectomy. J. Med. Invest. 68 : 90-95, February, 2021.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".