Investigating The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (Esas) In Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to somatic ailments, individuals afflicted with DFU often manifest psychological maladies. Research on the psychological aspects of DFU patients has not yet been conducted, especially using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) instrument. The aim is to predict the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) instrument among DFU Patients. This research conducted Descroptive Quantitative Research design. The sample in this study consisted of 57 DFU Patients who were selected by total sampling. The data collected in this study was analyzed descriptive Statistic. the majority of respondents are aged> 45 years as many as 53 respondents or 68.83%. Based on gender, it is found that the majority of respondents are female as many as 57 people or 74.03%. Based on the level of education, it was found that the majority of respondents graduated from elementary school totaling 31 people or 40.25%. Screening results on the Ankle Brachial Index found that the majority of respondents' ABI was Moderate, 31 people or 40.25%. While ESAS predictions are in the moderate category totaling 31 people or 40.25%.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".