Evaluation of symptom severity and life quality of cancer patients in palliative care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted to evaluate the symptom severity and quality of life levels of cancer patients hospitalized in palliative care units, and the effect of symptom severity on quality of life. Material and Methods: This study included 100 cancer patients hospitalized in palliative care units between November and December 2019, who accepted to participate in the study. Data were collected through face-to-face interview and Patient Information Form, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal) Scale through face-to-face interview. Results: The mean age of the participants was 66.4 years; 51% were females and 77% of the patients received care help from their spouses. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 30% of the patients, 98% were at the fourth stage of the disease, and 66% received chemotherapy. Most severely experienced symptoms were as follows in order: lack of appetite, dyspnea, fatigue, changes in skin and nails, anxiety, pain, and drowsiness. Life quality mean scores were 9.53.06 for physical well-being, 12.54.41 for social life/family well-being, 8.93.19 for emotional well-being, 4.83.08 for functional well-being, 29.78.09 for other concerns, and 65.314.50 for total FACIT-Pal. Discussion: It was determined that the patients had high symptom severity and low life quality; besides as the severity of the symptoms increase, life quality decreased.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".