The reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for patients with Bone Metastases: the EORTC QLQ-BM22
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measure among a sample of Iranian patients with bone metastases. One hundred and seventy-seven patients with bone metastases undergoing various treatments were recruited from Imam Khomeini Hospital in Tehran to participate in the study. The coefficient alpha affirmed internal consistency reliability of the Quality of Life Questionnaire for patients with Bone Metastases (QLQ-BM22). This measure discriminated well between subgroups of the patients based on performance status and responding to treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the factorial validity of the four hypothesized QLQ-BM22 scales. Patients in this study had a similar interpretation of the items on the QLQ-BM22 regardless of gender. All scales of the QLQ-BM22 were sensitive to change after treatment over a month's follow-up, with the exception of psychosocial aspects. The Persian version of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 was highly reliable and is valid for use among patients with bone metastases who are undergoing various treatment regimes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".