Assessment of symptom intensity and psychological well-being of patients with advanced cancer undergoing palliative care in a Brazilian public hospital: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The characterization of clinical–emotional aspects of advanced cancer patients is essential for palliative care. To date, there is scarce information regarding the socio-demographic and clinical profiles, as well as the quality of care given to hospitalized patients under this condition, particularly in South American countries. The objectives of this study were to analyze the socio-demographic profile, symptoms (including psychological well-being), and the quality of life of advanced cancer patients admitted to the oncology ward of the General Hospital of the University of Campinas, Brazil. Methods In this cross-sectional study, patients were invited to fill the selected questionnaires such as Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS). Descriptive analyses were performed, regarding socio-demographic profile, symptoms, level of information over treatment aims, and quality-of-life scores. Results Fifty-nine patients were included, of whom 29 were male and 30 female, with a mean age of 58 years. Overall, 31.9% presented pain at the time of the interview, 52.5% depression, and 76.3% anxiety. The median individual scores for ESAS and POS (and interquartile range) were, respectively, 27 (17–41) and 14 (9–19). Patients with previous knowledge of treatment objectives reported worse depression scores in the ESAS (median 2 vs. 0, p 0.02), even when correcting for possible confounders. Significance of results In contrast to current literature, in which pain is a prevalent report, depression and anxiety were more evident in this specific population of hospitalized patients. This framework reflects the need for valuing not only physical but also emotional symptoms to achieve the integrality of care.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".