Assessment of the impact of home palliative care on the quality of life, anxiety, and depression as well as performance status in cancer patients – case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The main aim of this study project is an assessment of the impact of home palliative care on the quality of life (QOL), anxiety, and depression as well as performance status in cancer patients. Material and methods:We used the following questionnaires: European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire -Core 30 (EORTC QLQ C-30), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). Results:We enrolled 21 cancer patients (adults) under home palliative care.In this study project we mainly compared the results of EORTC QLQ C-30, HADS, and KPS over time.Interestingly we found statistically significant differences between day 1 and day 21 of palliative care in the score of the EORTC QLQ C-30 and HADS scale.We noticed that the mean EORTC QLQ C-30 and HADS scores decreased at each time point at which we re-assessed QOL and anxiety as well as depression.We observed no statistically significant differences between the first and 21 st day in terms of performance status. Conclusions:Preliminary results indicate that the home palliative care can improve QOL and may also reduce the severity of anxiety and depression in cancer patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".