Development and validation of a Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptom (PROMS) scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Oral mucositis, a painful condition with potentially life-threatening sequelae, often develops in association with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. This condition has an adverse impact on the oral-health-related quality of life of patients undergoing marrow transplantation therapy. The purpose of this study was to create and validate a Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptom (PROMS) scale. This scale allows evaluation of symptoms of oral mucositis that threaten quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PROMS scale was compared with previously validated tools measuring quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Bone Marrow Transplant), symptoms of depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), psychological well-being (Affect Balance Scale) and stressful life events, as well as an objective, clinician-rated assessment of oral mucositis (Visual Analogue Scale--Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale). Thirty-four patients who were to undergo allogeneic bone marrow transplantation at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, were enrolled in this validation study. RESULTS: The PROMS scale had high internal reliability, as well as good convergent and discriminant validity relative to subjective measures of well-being. Longitudinal assessments showed that changes in PROMS scores were strongly correlated with changes in clinical assessment of oral mucositis over the first 2 weeks after transplantation, when the onset of oral mucositis typically occurs and the lesions are most severe. CONCLUSIONS: Oral mucositis in patients who have undergone bone marrow transplantation can be quantified reliably with the easily administered PROMS scale. The PROMSscale provides a valid measure of the impact of oral mucositis on the oral-health-related quality of life of patients affected by this malady.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".