Cancer‐related fatigue measures in palliative care: A psychometric systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In palliative care, the prevention and relief of fatigue are regarded as crucial goals in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments methodology. Searches were conducted in Medline (through PubMed), Web of Science, Open Gray, Scielo, Cochrane, CINAHL and EMBASE. All instruments found in each study were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments checklist and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: A total of 5598 articles were identified in the different databases. In total, 57 studies describing 19 instruments were included in this study. The main properties evaluated were internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, hypotheses testing and responsiveness. All studies were evaluated with the Strobe scale with a score greater than 6 points. CONCLUSIONS: According to the quality methodological results, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Problems and Needs in Palliative Care Questionnaire, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life 15-item Questionnaire for Palliative Care and Palliative Care Quality of Life Instrument are the recommended instruments used for assessing cancer-related fatigue in palliative care. PROPESRO registration number: CRD42020206783.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".