Support Care Cancer (2006) 14: 30–37 DOI 10.1007/s00520-005-0834-3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
validation in two palliative care settings Abstract In the palliative care set-ting, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) was devel-oped for use in daily symptom assessment of palliative care patients. ESAS considers the presence and severity of nine symptoms common in cancer patients: pain, tiredness, nau-sea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being and shortness of breath plus an optional tenth symp-tom, which can be added by the patient. The aim of this study was to validate the Italian version of ESAS and to evaluate an easy quality of life monitoring system that uses a patient’s self-rating symptom assessment in two different palliative care settings: in-patients and home patients. Eighty-three in-patients and 158 home care patients were enrolled. In the latter group, the Italian validated version of the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) was also administered at the admis-sion of the patients. The two groups of patients have similar median survival, demographic and clinical characteris-tics, symptom prevalence and overall distress score at baseline. ESAS shows a good concurrent validity with re-spect to SDS. The correlation between the physical items of ESAS and SDS was shown to be higher than the correlation between the psychological items. The association of ESAS scores and performance status (PS) showed a trend: the higher the symptom score was, the worse was the PS level. Test– retest evaluation, applied in the in-patient group, showed good agree-ment for depression, well-being and overall distress and a moderate agree-ment for all the other items. In conclusion, ESAS can be considered a valid, reliable and feasible instru-ment for physical symptom assess-ment in routine “palliative care” clinical practice with a potentially different responsiveness in different situations or care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.053 |
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".