Quality of Life Studies in Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health-related quality of life (HQL) was assessed before and after either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When the pretreatment HQL in patients who did not vomit after chemotherapy (n = 203) was compared to those who vomited (n = 230), it was found that patients who did not vomit had better physical, role, and social function scores as well as a better global quality of life score than did patients who had one or more episodes of vomiting. Furthermore, in patients who did not vomit, the pretreatment fatigue and anorexia scores were better than in patients who did vomit. Thus, pretreatment HQL scores appear to have value in predicting which patients will experience chemotherapy-induced emesis. In the week following chemotherapy, HQL change scores from prechemotherapy values for cognitive function, global quality of life, fatigue, anorexia, insomnia and dyspnea were significantly worse in the group experiencing emesis than in the group who remained completely free of emesis. There were no differences in physical, role, emotional and social function attributable to chemotherapy-induced vomiting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".