Symptom Burden and Survival in Patients Receiving Outpatient and Home-Based Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Symptom burden assessment with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) has been widely studied among patients in outpatient palliative care (OPC), but fewer reports in home-based palliative care (HBPC), and none has assessed the prognostic value of ESAS scores in HBPC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compares symptom burden and its prognostic value in adult patients receiving OPC and HBPC services between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021. Results: Patients completed the ESAS at the first OPC consultation ( n = 4086) and at admission to HBPC ( n = 4087). OPC patients were younger, more likely to have cancer, less likely to have had a recent hospitalization, and had higher adjusted median ESAS scores (28.1 vs. 22.9) compared with HBPC patients (all p < 0.001). ESAS was prognostic of survival in both settings (Hazard ratio 1.18–1.64, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Symptom burden is an independent prognosticator of survival in HBPC and OPC in this community-based setting.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".