Avaliação do instrumento Edmonton Symtom Assessment system em cuidados paliativos : revisão integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuidados Paliativos (CP) são prestados a pacientes fora de possibilidades terapêuticas de cura, tendo como foco o controle dos sintomas e melhora da qualidade de vida. A Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) é um instrumento para avaliar e monitorar nove sintomas físicos e psicológicos em pacientes de CP. O estudo objetiva realizar revisão integrativa acerca da avaliação dos profissionais de saúde e/ou pacientes quanto ao uso da ESAS em pacientes oncológicos em Cuidados Paliativos. Foram localizados oito artigos no Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) entre 1998 e 2009. Os resultados mostraram que apesar de haver poucos estudos sobre este assunto, a ESAS é um instrumento válido para detectar e monitorar sintomas nos CP, apresentando algumas limitações. Os resultados apontam para a importância da continuidade do estudo de tradução e adaptação transcultural desta escala para o português do Brasil.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".