Palliative care at any stage of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Many patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) receive palliative care (PC) very late or not at all. The impact of PC on patients with ALS and caregivers has not been quantified. Study goals included (1) measuring the impact of early PC on quality of life and mood of patients/caregivers and (2) describing patient/caregiver satisfaction with PC. Methods: The study was a non-randomized, prospective feasibility study of patients with ALS being treated at The Ottawa Hospital ALS Clinic and their caregivers. Exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, inability to complete questionnaires, and prior receipt of PC. The ALS Specific Quality of Life-Revised (ALSSQOL-R) questionnaire (patients only) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were completed at regular intervals for up to 2 years. Patients accepting a PC consultation completed a post-PC satisfaction survey. Primary outcome measures included ALSSQOL-R and HADS scores compared before and after PC consultation, and between groups receiving and not receiving a PC consultation. Secondary outcome measures included responses on the post-PC satisfaction survey (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Results: 39 patients with ALS (age 66 ± 10 years, median time from diagnosis = 6 months) and 22 caregivers were enrolled. 32 patients had a PC consultation (30 were virtual). Patients and caregivers agreed with statements that the PC consult was helpful (mean ± SD = 4.54 ± 0.60, range = 3-5) and they would recommend PC to others with ALS (4.59 ± 0.59, range = 3-5). Participants disagreed with statements that the consult would have been better later in disease course (1.87 ± 0.80, range = 1-4) and that it took too much time/energy (1.44 ± 0.85, range = 1-4). Average ALSSQOL-R scores worsened significantly over time. HADS and ALSSQOL-R scores did not significantly differ between groups receiving and not receiving PC. Conclusion: Patients with ALS and their caregivers found virtual PC consultations beneficial irrespective of disease duration or severity. Offering routine PC to all patients with ALS is feasible and should be considered as part of standard care. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04257760, identifier NCT04257760.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".