Quality of life instruments for skull base pathology: Systematic review and methodologic appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several quality of life (QOL) instruments exist for skull base pathology, however, there have been no attempts to appraise and systematically review these instruments. METHODS: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, AMED, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and PsychoInfo for anterior or central skull base QOL instruments to January 2010. We queried experts, bibliographies, and meeting proceedings from the North American Skull Base Society from 2005 to 2009. Included instruments were evaluated for instrument characteristics, item generation and reduction, field testing, and measurement properties using predefined criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 QOL instruments: 7 measuring QOL for pituitary pathology, 1 for midface pathology, and 1 for anterior skull base pathology. Eight of the 9 instruments have had some psychometric testing. None demonstrated all of the predefined psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: There are several QOL instruments for patients with skull base pathology. None of these instruments met all predefined requirements, and further instrument development is needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".