The impact of follicular (FL) and other indolent non‐Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL) on work productivity–a preliminary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although much is known about the efficacy, toxicity, and direct costs of treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL), there is no data assessing the impact of this diagnosis on the work productivity of affected individuals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of consecutive patients attending a malignant haematology clinic at a large multi-disciplinary cancer centre. Patients with a diagnosis of FL or other indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma completed questionnaires assessing health status, work productivity, and activity impairment. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients completed the survey study (95% response). Patients who continued to work reported a minimal impact on their work productivity (10%+/-standard deviation SD 20; 0%=no effect and 100%=complete impairment of activity) and on their daily activities (13%+/-SD 25) attributable to their cancer. Prior to lymphoma diagnosis, over 71% of patients were working while 14% were retired. At the time of survey administration, only 41% of patients were still able to work with a significant proportion of patients having transitioned to retirement (36%), sick leave (10%), or unemployment (4%). On multivariate analysis, significant activity impairment (daily activity impairment>50%) was predicted by poor self-rated health status (OR 32.1; 95% CI: 5.9-174.2; p<0.0001) and active chemotherapy treatment (OR 14.5; 95% CI: 0.91-230.9; p=0.059). CONCLUSIONS: Although few patients with indolent lymphoma identified significant impairment in productivity, many were unable to continue employment following diagnosis, needed to miss days from work, or imposed a significant burden on caregivers. The greatest impact on activity is apparent in patients who rate their health status as poor and in those who are currently receiving systemic therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".