The relation of body mass index and total symptom burden in female oncologic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Examine the relationship between obesity and symptom burden (SB) among female oncologic patients evaluated in cancer rehabilitation (CR) clinics. Secondary aims included evaluation of the relationship between obesity and SB among race, types of cancer, comorbid conditions and differences in symptom severity on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) questionnaire across body mass index. Background: Obesity is a risk factor for some types of breast and gynecologic cancers. Studies have shown an increased risk for pain persistence and higher symptom severity experienced by obese female patients who undergo oncologic treatments. The severity of symptom burden (SB), however, has not been studied in obese oncologic patients in the rehabilitation medicine setting. Methods: Retrospective chart review study in CR clinics, single institution. All the medical records of female patients (n = 61) who completed ESAS on initial evaluation in CR clinics were evaluated, from August 2020 to January 2022. Results: Obese female patients reported increased SB based on the ESAS questionnaire, specifically three symptom domains: pain, drowsiness, and spiritual distress. Conclusions: Nutrition counseling and lifestyle modifications in CR clinics may positively impact SB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".