Survival of cancer patients under treatment with the palliative care team in a Brazilian hospital in São Paulo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale is a relevant functional evaluation instrument that can be used to determine which patients should be followed by multidisciplinary palliative care teams. Objective: To analyze the clinical outcomes of patients with performance status lower than 70%, according to the Karnofsky Scale, who received care from a palliative care team compared to those who did not receive care from a palliative care team. Methods: In this retrospective cohort, follow-up of cancer patients by the palliative care team for 10 days was considered the exposure factor, while the dependent variable was patient survival. Data were extracted from medical records and descriptive and survival curve analyses were conducted. Results: Among 581 participants in the sample, 42.5% had metastasis, and the most prevalent medical diagnosis was gastrointestinal cancer (29.1%). Fifty-one (8.7%) were followed by the palliative care team. The mortality rate during the 10 days in the sample was 10.8%, and the rate was higher (15.7%) among patients followed by the palliative care team. Conclusion: Patients with a performance status below 70% who were followed by the palliative care team had poorer clinical conditions and a shorter survival than those who were not followed up by the team.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it