Prospective evaluation of the reliability, validity, and minimally important difference of the functional assessment of cancer therapy‐gastric (FACT‐Ga) quality‐of‐life instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga) was developed to measure the quality of life (QoL) of patients with gastric cancer. This newly developed instrument has not yet been validated. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with gastric adenocarcinoma completed questionnaires at baseline. The FACT-Ga scores were measured as a function of disease stage and performance status, and they were correlated with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), the Beck Depression Inventory-II, the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, the Paulhus Deception Scale, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Patients received a second questionnaire 2 weeks after baseline to evaluate test-retest reliability and again at 3 months to evaluate the sensitivity of the FACT-Ga to changes in performance status and to estimate the minimally important differences in scores that represented meaningful change. RESULTS: The internal and test-retest reliability of the FACT-Ga instrument was adequate. With the exception of the social well being subscale, all FACT-Ga scores were correlated as hypothesized with other measures. Relevant components of the FACT-Ga were sensitive to changes in performance status. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that the FACT-Ga provides a valid and reliable measurement of QoL in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. It is a useful instrument for QoL assessment in clinical trials, and it also may be useful for the detection of significant changes in the QoL of individual patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".