Are There Ways To Prevent Psychiatric Affections In Oncological 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 and Aims:Psycho-oncology gives an approach to cancer patients and treats the emotional, social and spiritual distress which accompanies them. Recent research has indicated that not only illness, but also treatment can lead to severe depression, anxiety and distress. This study aims to establish the prevalence of anxiety and depression, the quality of life, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders and substance dependence in cancer patients from a Romanian hospital. It also describes the clinical characteristics of these patients and examines if different types of cancer have any influence on the level of psychiatric diagnosis.Methods:This is a prospective, longitudinal study that followed 130 patients from the radio-oncology department for three months and 37 of them were reevaluated. For the evaluation of psychiatric comorbidities a number of eight scales were used: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Quality of Life Questionnaire, Athens Insomnia Scale, Numeric Rating Scale for Pain, CAGE scale and Fagerstrom test, Global Assessment of Functioning and Montreal Cognitive Assessment.Results:As expected, depression and anxiety are underdiagnosed among the lot of the study. The quality of life is corelated with intensity of pain, depression and anxiety level. There was a high rate of alcohol and nicotine use among these oncological patients, although the majority of them stopped the consume after confronting the diagnosis.Conclusions:To sum up, patients from oncology department should have access to psychiatric services due to high prevalence of this type of disorders. Both the disease and oncological treatment influence the quality of life and can lead to anxiety and depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.041 |
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