The association of nutritional assessment criteria with health-related quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health-related quality of life (QoL) is a goal in nutritional oncology but the association between nutritional status and QoL is rarely explored. The aim of the study was to investigate the association of nutritional assessment criteria with QoL in 50 patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. A second aim was to investigate changes in body weight and QoL during a 3-month follow-up. Muscle mass, nutritional risk, malnutrition and cachexia according to three different criteria were assessed, as well as health-related QoL. At inclusion, 36 patients experienced weight loss, 10 patients sarcopenia, 25 were at nutritional risk, 16 were malnourished and 11, 14 and 31 patients had cachexia according to different criteria. All nutritional assessment criteria discriminated between groups of patients with worse or better QoL to varying degrees. Malnutrition and cachexia defined by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative and adjusted for recent gain or stabilisation of body weight discriminated on most QoL scores. Weight loss at follow-up was associated with a decrease in several QoL scores. Recognition of weight loss as well as diagnosing malnutrition and cachexia should be the first steps in an interventional pathway to enhance nutritional status and QoL in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it