The Impact of Tunneled Pleural Catheters on the Quality of Life of Patients with Malignant Pleural Effusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tunneled pleural catheters (TPC) are used in the management of malignant pleural effusions (MPE), but the impact of this palliative procedure on patient quality of life (QoL) has not been well described. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the impact of TPCs on symptoms and QoL of patients with recurrent MPE. METHODS: Patients with recurrent MPE completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 QoL questionnaires at baseline, 2 and 14 weeks; FACIT-TS-G© treatment satisfaction surveys were completed at 14 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were recruited. Thirty-seven patients (37/82, 45%) died prior to their 14-week follow-up appointment. Significant improvements in dyspnea at 2 weeks were demonstrated with both dyspnea scores (LC13 baseline score 64.1, 2-week score 43.7, mean change -20.4, n = 56, p < 0.001; C30 baseline score 78.9, 2-week score 46.6, mean change -32.4, n = 68, p < 0.001), as well as with the MRC score (baseline median score 4, 2-week score 3, n = 70, p < 0.001). Global health status/QoL was also significantly improved at 2 weeks (baseline score 34.1, 2-week score 46.3, mean change 12.3, n = 68, p < 0.001). Improvements in cough, fatigue and all functional scales were noted at 2 weeks. The improvements in dyspnea and global health status/QoL were maintained to 14 weeks in surviving subjects and there was further improvement in the MRC score at 14 weeks. Patients who completed the FACIT-TS-G survey demonstrated overall satisfaction with TPC treatment. CONCLUSIONS: TPCs are associated with a significant improvement in global health status, QoL and dyspnea at the 2-week time point in patients with recurrent MPE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".