MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic significance of symptoms of advanced cancer patients

2004· article· en· W600131440 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaVomitingDysphagiaAnorexiaAbdominal painPalliative careInternal medicineUnivariate analysisDepression (economics)SwallowingMultivariate analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8150 Background: Advanced cancer Palliative care patients have a variety of distressing symptoms. Their prognostic significance with regard to survival has not been systematically studied. Methods: Symptoms (type and severity) were assessed during an in-depth interview by a clinical nurse specialist with 166 cancer patients (46% male, 54% female) referred to a university hospital palliative care teamnurse specialist. WHO performance status: 2% 1, 27% 2, 50% 3, 21% 4. Diagnosis: 14% breast, 11% gynaecological, 19% gastrointestinal, 11% head and neck, 11% lung, 8% prostate and 26% other types of cancer. For 90 patients scores were available from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Schedule (ESAS). Medical data and survival were recorded. The prognostic significance of the most frequent symptoms was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses. Results: We recorded 29 different physical and psychological symptoms occurring in ≥10% of patients. 96% of the patients has have died. Survival at two months was 51%. In univariate analysis, headache, abdominal pain, pain in an extremity, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, dysphagia, dyspnea, drowsiness, confusion and depression were predictive of survival. The ESAS-scores for anorexia, nausea, dysphagia, dyspnea and drowsiness were significantly correlated with survival. After correcting for diagnosis, dyspnea, dysphagia, vomiting, confusion and nausea vomiting, confusion and nausea (occurring in 31%, 11%, 25%, 17% and 39%, 25%, 17% and 39% of patients, respectively) were independent predictive factors of survival. Patients with confusion, dyspnea, dysphagia or vomiting had an increased chance of dying within two months of 9.4, 7.3, 4.3, and 4.,3, respectively, compared to patients without these symptoms. Conclusion: Patients with confusion, dyspnea, dysphagia, vomiting or nausea have a significantly worse prognosis, regardless of diagnosis. A comprehensive assessment of symptoms is useful to determine prognosis in advanced cancer patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.417 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it