Characterizing the Physical and Psychological Experiences of Newly Diagnosed Pancreatic Cancer Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a poor prognosis, causing significant physical and psychological distress that detrimentally impacts patients' quality of life. AIM: This study aimed to comprehensively assess the physical and psychological status of newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: A cohort of 138 newly diagnosed patients completed standardized assessments, including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Distress Thermometer (DT). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The ESAS scores revealed high symptom burden, with mean scores of 6.8 for pain, 7.2 for fatigue, and 4.9 for depression. Measures of well-being indicated low scores, with means of 2.3 for physical well-being, 1.5 for social/family well-being, and 1.7 for emotional well-being. Distress levels were also high, with a mean score of 7.6 on the DT. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients experience substantial physical and psychological challenges, including severe symptom burden, distress, depressive symptoms, and cognitive impairment. Holistic care approaches that prioritize symptom management and address psychological distress are essential to improve patient outcomes and enhance overall well-being.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it