Impact of Interventional Bronchoscopy on Quality of Life in Malignant Airway Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventional bronchoscopic procedures can re-establish airway patency in the majority of individuals suffering from endobronchial obstruction. However, literature provides limited data on the impact of these procedures on the individual's quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of interventional bronchoscopic procedures aimed at re-establishing airway patency on symptoms and QoL of individuals who do not receive concomitant chemotherapy or radiation therapy. METHODS: Over a 6-month period, we prospectively enrolled patients with symptomatic central airway obstruction related to malignancy and performed laser ablation, cryotherapy, and/or airway stenting in order to re-establish airway patency. QoL was evaluated by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at one day before, 7 days after, and 1 month after procedure. Dyspnea was also assessed by the Borg scale before the procedure and one day after. RESULTS: Final analysis could be performed on 83% (20/24) of the participants. Improvement in airway diameter was achieved in all patients, and >80% patency was established in 80% (16/20) of the patients. Dyspnea scores had improved in 85% of participants (p = 0.01). Thirteen patients experienced an improvement in QoL, although QoL scores remained stable for the group as a whole. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic procedures can effectively reduce dyspnea associated with malignant central airway obstruction, but this may not always translate into improvements in overall QoL. Administration of QoL questionnaires is feasible, and may help identify domains contributing to patient's decline, and thereby improve overall patient care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".