Quality of life in patients with glioblastoma participating in a randomized study of boost brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Until recently the assessment of outcome in patients treated for glioma has emphasized length of survival with the evaluation of quality of life (QOL) limited to unidimensional, mostly physical, measures. The authors report the multidimensional assessment of QOL as part of a randomized clinical trial of brachytherapy as a boost in the initial treatment of patients with glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS: A questionnaire previously developed by the senior authors and psychometrically validated was completed by patients on randomized entry into the study and at follow-up review every 3 months thereafter. The questionnaire was presented in a linear-analog self-assessment format. Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores were also recorded on each occasion. No differences were found between patients in either arm of the study (conventional radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 25 fractions or conventional radiation plus a brachytherapy boost of a minimum peripheral tumor dose of 60 Gy) in KPS and QOL scores during the 1st year of follow-up review. However, there was a statistically significant deterioration in patients' overall KPS scores during the 1st year of follow up compared with baseline scores. Of QOL items evaluated, statistically significant deteriorations were found in self care, speech, and concentration, and on subscale analyses, cognitive functioning and physical experience (symptoms) deteriorated significantly during the 1st year of follow up, compared with baseline values. The correlation between QOL and KPS scores was low. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies in patients harboring malignant gliomas must incorporate measures assessing QOL because traditional measures focusing on physical or neurological functioning give an incomplete assessment of the patient's experience.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".