A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome for head and neck cancer. Our purpose was to critically review published disease-specific QOL instruments. METHODS: Medline and Cancerlit were searched from 1966-1999. Eight disease-specific QOL instruments were identified, described, and appraised for development, sensibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Several of the available instruments have been well-developed and characterized. No one instrument is ideal for all purposes. When selecting a disease-specific QOL instrument for head and neck cancer patients, careful consideration must be given to disease subsite, treatment, timing of assessment, clinical setting, study purpose and research question. CONCLUSION: Validation of QOL instruments is an ongoing process. Direct comparisons of different instruments may help to establish the most appropriate questionnaire for each situation. Efforts should be focused on the evaluation of existing instruments, rather than the development of new questionnaires.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it