Symptom documentation and intervention in paediatric cancer care-association with severity: observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives were to determine the relationship between prevalence of symptom documentation and intervention provision, and increasing severity of bothersome symptoms, as identified by guardians using guardian-reported Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (proxy-SSPedi), which is validated and measures the extent of bothersome symptoms in paediatric patients with cancer. METHODS: We included guardians of children 2-7 years of age receiving cancer treatments and seen in hospital daily for 4 consecutive days. Guardians reported proxy-SSPedi at study enrolment and 3 days later. Chart review was performed between the day prior and the day following proxy-SSPedi completion. Symptom documentation and intervention provision were determined by two independent abstractors. RESULTS: We enrolled 190 guardians who provided 371 proxy-SSPedi assessments in 190 children. The most common severely bothersome symptoms were 'feeling tired', 'feeling more or less hungry than they usually do' and 'feeling cranky or angry'. Among those with increasing severity of bother, documentation was significantly more common for 12 symptoms while intervention was significantly more common for 7 symptoms. Intervention was not significantly more common with increasing severity of bother due to 'feeling tired', 'feeling more or less hungry than they usually do' and 'feeling cranky or angry'. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom documentation was generally more common in patients with severely bothersome symptoms. Intervention was not more common among those with increasing severity of bother due to fatigue, changes in hunger or anger, which were the most common severely bothersome symptoms. Future efforts should focus on facilitating intervention provision to patients with bothersome symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".