Minimal important differences in the <scp>EORTC QLQ</scp>‐<scp>C15</scp>‐<scp>PAL</scp> to determine meaningful change in palliative advanced cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Quality of life (QOL) is important for advanced cancer patients. Brief questionnaires are advantageous to reduce patient burden. In large clinical trials, statistically significant small changes can be achieved; however, whether such change is clinically relevant is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal important differences (MID) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 15 palliative questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). METHODS: Patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy completed the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL at baseline and 1 month later. Anchor and distribution-based assessments were employed to determine the MID associated with this instrument. The anchor of overall QOL was used to determine meaningful change. RESULTS: In all, 276 patients were included in MID calculation. Mean age was 65 years and primary lung, breast or prostate cancers were most common. Statistically significant MID for improvement was seen in emotional functioning and pain (20.9 and 15.6, respectively). MID for deterioration required a 20.4, 24.5, 17.1 and 23.0 change in physical functioning, fatigue, pain and appetite loss, respectively, to constitute meaningful change. Distribution-based estimates of MID were closest to the standard error of measurement. MID for brain and bone metastases patients yielded MID larger than previously determined in the incorporation of all patients. CONCLUSION: Meaningful change in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is important for clinicians to determine the impact of treatment on the QOL of patients and can aid in determining the sample size required for clinical trials. Future studies should investigate MID in subgroups using symptom-specific modules.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".