Quality of life and functional dependence in oncology patients: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: To compare quality of life and functioning of oncology patients under palliative care to patients in treatment and those with no evidence of disease. Methods:A cross-sectional and comparative study was carried out in an outpatient oncology of the public hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Participants were divided into three groups: patients under palliative care, those in treatment for the disease and those in post treatment follow-up with no evidence of disease. Data collection involved the use of a questionnaire addressing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as the Palliative Performance Scale and McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire. Results: The sample was composed of 300 patients, with a predominance of the female sex (51.3%), individuals with a partner (68%) and catholics (62%). The Palliative Performance Scale revealed a predominance of stable patients (score: ≥ 70 points) in all three groups. Overall, participants under palliative care had lower quality of life scores (median: 6.5points) compared to the other groups (p< 0.01). Age, palliative care, income, the male sex and pain control independently exerted influence on quality-of-life scores (p < 0.05). Age, time since diagnosis, being under palliative care, belonging to the Spiritism religion and income exerted an influence on palliative performance (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Quality of life was poorer among the participants under palliative care. Functionally stable patients predominated in all three groups. An advanced age, being palliative care and low income exerted a negative influence on functioning and the perception of quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".