Measuring quality of life in cancer survivors: a methodological review of existing scales
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
BACKGROUND: Studies examining quality of life (QoL) in cancer survivors have relied on instruments specific to the cancer patient population. METHOD: MEDLINE and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify instruments and papers reporting the psychometric qualities of relevant instruments. Two reviewers undertook data extraction with respect to reliability, validity, predictive validity, responsiveness, acceptability, readability, cross cultural acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: Forty-two instruments were identified. Most were either measures of general health-related QoL or developed for individuals in active treatment. Nine were developed specifically for cancer survivors. None met the rigorous psychometric standards set by the review. All established acceptable levels of validity, however, only one instrument (Quality of Life-Cancer Survivors) demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability. Acceptability, feasibility and predictive validity remain unexamined. Readability was examined in only two (Cancer Survivors' Unmet needs and Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS)). Only two instruments (QLACS and Impact of Cancer) have been developed with a wide range of cancer survivors. Generally, shorter-term cancer survivors (1-5 years) are underrepresented. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a psychometrically credible QoL instrument for cancer survivors who are 1-5 years post diagnosis.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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