The Role of Religiosity in Symptom Expression of Advanced Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the religious pattern and its impact on symptom expression in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A consecutive sample of advanced cancer patients screened at admission to palliative care. Standard epidemiological data were recorded. Patients were asked about their religious beliefs, the degree of social relationship to existing religions, the role of religion in their life, and the frequency of their prayer. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Hospital Anxiety Depression scale (HADS) were assessed. RESULTS: Two-hundred-eighty-three patients were screened. Age and gender were found to be independently correlated with religious belief (p = 0.042 and p = 0.016, respectively). Gender (females, p = 0.026), age (p = 0.003), lower Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (p = 0.022), and higher values of HADS-A (p = 0.003) were independently correlated with the degree of social relationship to existing religions. Gender (females, p = 0.002), lower KPS (p = 0.005), and higher values of HADS-A (p = 0.04) were independently correlated with a more relevant role of religiosity. Gender (females, p < 0.0005), lower KPS (p = 0.001), and drowsiness (p = 0.05) were independently correlated with frequency of prayer. CONCLUSION: The more the patients have demanding religious issues, the greater the state of anxiety, particularly in older and female patients with a lower KPS. The religious pattern did not have relevant role in the expression of other symptoms included in the ESAS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".