Quality of life after palliative radiotherapy in bone metastases: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality of life (QOL) following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in OvidSP Medline (1946-Jan Week 4 2014), Embase (1947-Week 5 2014), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2013) databases. The search was limited to English. Subject headings and keywords included 'palliative radiation', 'cancer palliative therapy', 'bone metastases', 'quality of life', and 'pain'. All studies (prospective or retrospective) reporting change in QOL before and after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases were included. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were selected from a total of 1730. The most commonly used tool to evaluate QOL was the Brief Pain Inventory. Seventeen studies collected data prospectively. An improvement in symptoms and functional interference scores following radiotherapy was observed in all studies. The difference in changes in QOL between responders and non responders was inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: QOL improves in patients who respond to palliative radiotherapy for painful 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".