International field testing of the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ‐BM22 module to assess health‐related quality of life in patients with bone metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this international field study was to test the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BM22 module to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with bone metastases. METHODS: Patients undergoing a variety of bone metastases-specific treatments were accrued. The QLQ-BM22 was administered with the QLQ-C30 at baseline and at 1 follow-up time point internationally. A debriefing questionnaire was administered to determine patient acceptability and understanding. RESULTS: Large-scale field testing of the QLQ-BM22 in addition to the QLQ-C30 took place in 7 countries: Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, France, India, and Taiwan. A total of 400 patients participated. Multitrait scaling analyses confirmed 4 scales in the 22-item module. The scales were able to discriminate between clinically distinct patient groups, such as between those with a poor and those with a better performance status. The QLQ-BM22 was well received in all 7 countries, and the majority of patients did not recommend any significant changes from the module in its current form. CONCLUSIONS: The final QLQ-BM22 module contains 22 items and 4 scales assessing Painful Sites, Painful Characteristics, Functional Interference, and Psychosocial Aspects. Results confirmed the validity, reliability, cross-cultural applicability, and sensitivity of the 22-item EORTC QLQ-BM22. It is therefore recommended that the QLQ-BM22 be used in addition to the QLQ-C30 in clinical trials to assess HRQOL in patients with bone metastases.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".