A ross-sectional study for assessing perceived symptoms, depression and quality of life in advanced lung cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to assess the perceived symptoms, depression and quality of life (QoL) in advanced lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: The study was cross sectional and was conducted in the oncology department of General Hospital "George Papanikolaou", Thessaloniki, Greece. The sample was convenient and consisted of 76 advanced lung cancer patients. A questionnaire including instruments such as Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale- CES-D, Revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale r-ESAS, EORTC QLQC30 and demographic and clinical information was used to collect data. Results: The most frequently observed symptoms were tiredness, shortness of breath, anxiety and well-being. The vast majority of patients (75.3%) had total score in CESdepression higher than 16. The type of residence affected ESAS emotional score (p=0.010). Gender affected the level of depression (p=0.014) and the type of lung cancer affected depression (p=0.036). The type of residence affected emotional functioning (p=0.010), the type of treatment influenced the score of global health status (p=0.007), the role functioning (p=0.032) and social functioning (p=0.024). Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to identify the predictors of overall QoL and depression. The statistically significant factors for QoL were pain (p<0.001) and tiredness (p=0.003), while the type of lung cancer (p<0.007), the type of insurance (p<0.025) and the type of treatment (p<0.041) influenced depression as well. Conclusions: Advanced lung cancer patients experienced moderate level in QoL and mild levels of symptoms. Demographic and clinical characteristics influenced depression and QoL. © 2021 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".