Health-Related Quality of Life and Psychosocial Status in Breast Cancer Prognosis: Analysis of Multiple Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence that psychosocial status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are associated with breast cancer (BC) outcomes is weak and inconsistent. We examined prognostic effects of these factors in a prospective cohort study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred ninety-seven women with surgically resected T1 to T3, N0/N1, M0 BC completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (Core 30 items), Profile of Mood States, Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale, Impact of Events Scale, Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale, and the Courtauld Emotional Control Scale 2 months after diagnosis and 1 year later. Data on tumor-related factors, treatment, and outcomes were obtained prospectively from medical records, and Cox survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean age was 52.0 +/- 9.9 years. Two hundred twenty-five women had T1, 136 women had T2, 16 women had T3, and 20 women had TX tumors; 127 were N1. One hundred thirteen women received adjuvant chemotherapy, 130 received hormone therapy, 45 received both, and 109 received neither. We investigated 140 prognostic associations; four were found to be statistically significant at a P value of </= .05 (three fewer than expected by chance). Two were in the hypothesized direction of effect, and two were in the opposite direction. All arose from measurements 1 year after diagnosis, which were most susceptible to confounding by treatment. There was no evidence of consistency of associations across outcomes or questionnaires. These results are in keeping with chance as the explanation for our statistically significant findings. CONCLUSION: HRQOL and psychosocial status at diagnosis and 1 year later are not associated with medical outcome in women with early-stage BC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".