Nurses provide valuable proxy assessment of the health‐related quality of life of children with Hodgkin disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We prospectively compared the proxy reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQL) by parents and nurses of children with Hodgkin disease to see how well they correlated with the children's report. METHODS: Children with all stages of Hodgkin disease, their parents, and the clinic nurse were all asked to complete 4 different HRQL measures at 4 time points: 2 weeks after the first course of chemotherapy, on the third day of the second course of chemotherapy, during the third week of radiation, and 1 year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients from 12 centers across Canada were enrolled in the study between May 1, 2002 and March 31, 2005. Two patients were excluded. The children's Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) generic scores increased from 64 at base line to 81 at the end of the study. There was substantial agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.6) among the participants' scores at most time points except when the child was actively receiving inpatient chemotherapy. At that time, there was only fair to moderate agreement between the child and parent, with the parents on average rating the PedsQL generic score 5 points lower than the child. The nurses still had substantial agreement at that time point with the PedsQL generic and cancer module as well as the EuroQol EQ-5D visual analogue scale visual analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of treatment for Hodgkin disease, there was substantial agreement among the parent's, nurse's, and children's reported HRQL scores. Nurses contribute valuable additional information as proxy respondents.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".