Reliability and validity of Japanese version of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire assessed by application in palliative care wards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), which consists of 16 items constructing physical, psychological, existential and support subscales and one item of overall quality of life (QOL), has been developed to assess QOL of terminal cancer patients. To examine if MQOL Japanese version (MQOL-J) is applicable, it was administered to 83 terminal cancer patients in palliative care wards several days after admission and then 7 to 10 days after the first interview. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for four subscales was 0.584-0.860. Sixteen items were classified into four factors by factor analysis, similar to the original English version. The results indicated that psychological and existential domains of the MQOL-J significantly related to overall QOL. Existential and support domains as well as overall QOL were significantly improved between the first and second interviews, although performance status assessed by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group worsened. It is suggested that MQOL-J can reflect perceived health status of terminal cancer 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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".