PERSPECTIVES OF PAIN, SPIRITUALITY, AND ADVANCE CARE PLANNING AMONG LATINO ADULTS WITH CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latinos are the largest minority group in the United States and experience inequality in their receipt of palliative care resources and services. This descriptive study examines the connection between pain, spirituality, and intentions to discuss advance care planning among a subset of Latino adults with cancer. A secondary dataset was used to address the research questions: “how does pain and spirituality influence advance care planning among Latino adults with cancer?” and “how are Latino adults with cancer, who report pain, coping in the context of a limited palliative care infrastructure?” We examined a subset of 11 Latino participants diagnosed with cancer who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a Spirituality Assessment, and the Advance Care Planning and Engagement Survey prior to talking with Palliative Care Lay Advisors. These 11 participants self-reported their pain as four or greater (e.g., not well-managed) at the time of the survey. The participants were composed of six men and five women with a mean age of 50. Only one of the 11 participants had signed official advance care planning documents. Still, most participants reported a high sense of spirituality which may have allowed them to cope better with their pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".