The Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool: Further Development and Validation for Use in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the validity of the revised version of the Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool (EFAT-2), which was designed to measure physical impairment and functional performance of patients in palliative care. The EFAT-2 was administered to 275 patients on admission to an acute palliative care unit. Principal-components factor analysis was performed on the 10 items of the scale, and Cronbach's alpha was calculated to measure internal consistency. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to compare the admission EFAT-2 scores of three groups of patients: (a) deceased on the unit, (b) transferred to a continuing care palliative unit, (c) discharged home. Two main factors were revealed: physical and non-physical (cognitive/affective). Pain was identified as an independent item and did not correlate with any other item. Cronbach's alpha was 0.86. The ANOVA was significant (F [2,267] 29.063, p < 0.001). The results suggest that the EFAT-2 measures one construct. They also suggest that the EFAT-2 is able to discriminate between palliative care patients based on discharge location.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".