INSTRUMENTOS PARA AVALIAÇÃO DE PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS EM CUIDADOS PALIATIVOS: REVISÃO INTEGRATIVA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO: Objetivo: identificar os instrumentos utilizados para a avaliação do paciente hospitalizado em cuidados paliativos. Método: revisão integrativa da literatura, realizada em janeiro de 2024, nas plataformas de dados on-line: National Library of Medicine e Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe de Informação em Ciências da Saúde e a biblioteca virtual Scientific Electronic Library Online. Foram analisados 12 artigos científicos. Resultados: foram identificados 16 instrumentos, sete genéricos, quatro específicos as para pessoas em cuidados paliativos, quatro específicos para os pacientes oncológicos e um para o diagnóstico de COVID-19. O Palliative Perfomance Scale e Edmonton Symptom Assessment foram os instrumentos mais utilizados nos estudos e os aspectos mais relevantes a serem avaliados nos pacientes em cuidados paliativos, foram: capacidade funcional, sintomas físicos e psicológicos e idade avançada. Conclusão: os instrumentos se mostraram úteis para direcionar os profissionais de saúde, na avaliação do paciente, no planejamento do cuidado e na tomada de decisões.
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 | 0.047 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".