Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the determinants of quality of life (QoL) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has become increasingly important with the recent emphasis on the comprehensive management of patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the determinants of QoL in ALS using two scales with different theoretical constructs: the Schedule for the Evaluation of QoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), which evaluates subjective aspects of QoL, and the McGill QoL Questionnaire (MQOL), which evaluates both health related and non-health related factors of QoL. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with ALS underwent a battery of tests evaluating QoL and a series of physical, emotional, psychological, and socioeconomic predictor variables. A stepwise linear regression model was used to compare QoL scores and explicatory variables. RESULTS: SEIQoL-DW score was related to social support, depression, religiosity, and socioeconomic status. Total MQOL score was related to social support, socioeconomic status, and clinical status. MQOL single item score (MQOL-SIS) was related to social support, depression, social withdrawal, and socioeconomic status. SEIQoL-DW score was not related to total MQOL score. Conversely, a significant correlation was found between SEIQoL-DW and MQOL-SIS. CONCLUSIONS: With both QoL scales, the most important explicatory variable of QoL was the self perceived quality of social support. Physical status was not relevant in determining QoL. This study indicates that health related QoL measures are not adequate to assess QoL in patients with ALS, because their appreciation of QoL mainly relies on psychological, supportive, and spiritual factors. Therapeutic interventions should consider the psychological needs of patients and pay greater attention to caregivers' issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".