Minimal important differences in the <scp>EORTC QLQ‐C30</scp> in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Quality of life (QOL) is important in patients with advanced cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 is a general QOL tool used in cancer patients. Often, with a large enough sample, statistical significance of changecan be reached, however the clinical significance is often unknown. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of change that is meaningful to advanced cancer patients in the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and 1 month post-radiation to assess changes in their QOL. Minimal important differences (MID) were calculated through anchor and distribution-based methods for improvement and deterioration. The two anchors of overall health and overall QOL were used to determine meaningful change. RESULTS: Statistically significant meaningful changes were seen in the use of both anchors. The overall health anchor produced a greater number of scales and symptoms that reached a statistically significant meaningful change. Meaningful change for improvement with these two anchors ranged from 9.1 units (cognitive functioning) to 23.5 units (pain), and for deterioration it ranged from 7.2 units (physical functioning) to 13.5 units (role functioning). Distribution-based estimates were closest to 0.5 SD. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of meaningful change on the EORTC QLQ-C30 allows physicians to assess patients' changes over time, along with evaluating the impact of treatment on a patient's QOL. This knowledge gives insight into whether the treatment is effective and, ultimately, whether it should be continued. Knowledge of MID may assist in the determination of sample size for future trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".