Quality of Life in Patients with Oropharyngeal Carcinoma after Primary Surgery and Postoperative Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of life in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma after primary surgery and postoperative irradiation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and patient response to the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires. SETTING: A tertiary care university hospital. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma underwent primary surgery followed by postoperative irradiation between January 1997 and February 2002. Eighty-eight disease-free survivors were identified in September 2002 and included in this study. The questionnaires were completed by 34 patients (39% completion rate). Median follow-up was 2.3 years (range 0.5-4.9 years). In oropharyngeal carcinoma patients, five scales of the SF-36 showed significantly reduced scores in comparison with the normal German population: physical functioning, role functioning - physical, general health, social functioning, and role functioning - emotional. Posttreatment scores from the literature fell within the 95% confidence interval of our data except one out of fifteen scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and six out of eighteen scales of the EORTC QLQ H&N35 questionnaire. The comparison of our data with data from the reviewed literature produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: General quality of life was reduced in our oropharyngeal carcinoma patients. Primary surgery and postoperative irradiation demonstrated similar results in different studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".