MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S6-1: Menopause-Specific and Health-Related Qualities of Life among Post-Menopausal Women Taking Exemestane for Prevention of Breast Cancer: Results from the NCIC CTG MAP.3 Placebo-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trial.

2011· article· en· W2004178642 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Maunsell, Harriet Richardson, JN Ingle, JE Alés-Martínez, R. T. Chlebowski, CJ Fabian, GE Sarto, J. E. Garber, Pascal Pujol, Andrea Hiltz, D. Tu, PE Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)MenopausePlaceboPsychosocialRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerPhysical therapyExemestaneGerontologyGynecologyInternal medicineTamoxifenCancerPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, reduced the incidence of invasive breast cancers by 65% among 4560 post-menopausal randomized to exemestane or placebo for 5 years on MAP.3. Differences in quality of life (QOL) were judged to be minimal, but only summary information was reported. Purpose: To provide more detailed information about effects of exemestane on menopause-specific and health-related qualities of life. Method: Participation in quality of life assessment was an eligibility criterion. Menopause-specific and health-related qualities of life were assessed using the MENQOL (4 scales; physical, vasomotor, psychosocial, sexual) and SF-36 (8 scales; physical health, role function — physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social function, role function — emotional, mental health, and 2 summary scales) instruments, respectively at baseline, 6 months and then yearly after randomization. Compliance with QOL questionnaire completion at each follow-up visit ranged from 93–98%, and did not differ by group. Change scores for each MENQOL and SF-36 scale, calculated for each assessment time relative to baseline, were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. Summary scores were used to summarize the QOL scores observed at each time point for each SF-36 dimension and overall mental (MCS) and physical component summaries (PCS) and MENQOL domains. Clinically important worsening of MENQOL change scores was defined as an increase of ≥0.5/8 points. SF-36 change scores were considered worsened if scores decreased by ≥ 5 points from baseline. Results: Both groups were balanced on scores for MENQOL and SF-36 at baseline. Median follow-up was 35 months and the proportion of women who stopped study medication early for toxicity reasons was 15% in the exemestane arm and 11% in the placebo arm. There was a statistically significant difference in change scores for vasomotor symptoms among women on exemestane during the first 4 years (p-values <0.01), compared to placebo. However, no between-group differences in vasomotor change met the criterion for clinical importance. Women on exemestane had statistically poorer sexual functioning (mean change = −0.02, SD=1.37) compared to placebo (mean change = −0.12, SD=1.32) during the first 6 months on study (p-value = 0.03) but the differences were not statistically significant thereafter or clinically important at any time. Among the 8 SF-36 scales, only bodily pain was statistically different between exemestane and placebo for the first 24 months on study medication (p-value <0.01), but no between-group difference in change scores exceeded 5 points. Overall SF-36 PCS and MCS assessing changes in overall physical and mental health-related QOL did not differ significantly by group at any assessment. Conclusion: Our assessment that early differences in vasomotor symptoms and pain were probably not clinically important is supported by the observation of no between-group differences when overall physical and mental health-related QOL changes were compared. Exemestane does not appear to have a major negative impact on the quality of life among these women. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→