Quality of Life in Patients with Brain Metastases Treated with a Palliative Course of Whole-Brain Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to assess whether there was an improvement in quality of life for patients with brain metastases as measured 1 and 2 months after a course of whole-brain radiotherapy. The secondary objective was to assess the level of agreement between patient and proxy quality of life scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty patients with brain metastases and their proxy completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-BR) questionnaire independently. Proxies were given instructions to answer from the patient's perspective. Quality-of-life assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months after completion of whole-brain radiotherapy. Paired t tests with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons were calculated to detect significant differences in global quality-of-life scores. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient measured agreement between patient and proxy quality-of-life ratings. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected in overall quality of life after whole-brain radiotherapy. At 2 months after whole-brain radiotherapy, there was a trend toward worsening general and brain specific quality-of-life scores. There was poor concordance between patients and their proxies for all quality-of-life domains at baseline. CONCLUSION: At 2 months after whole-brain radiotherapy, there was a trend toward worsening general and brain specific quality-of-life scores. Proxy rating of patients' quality of life showed poor concordance at baseline.
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) | 0.001 | 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".