MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142812557 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100007095

Development of a Concise QOL Questionnaire for Brain Tumor Patients

2009· article· en· W2142812557 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Philippe Goffaux, Marie Boudrias, David Mathieu, Catherine Charpentier, Nadia Veilleux, David Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaQuality of life (healthcare)NeurocognitiveMedicineDiseaseConstruct validityReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsPhysical therapyCognitionPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a self-administered questionnaire to measure the health-related quality of life (QOL) of patients with brain cancer. We wanted to assess both core and disease-specific concerns in a single, easy-to-use instrument, thus promoting concision and clinical utility. The questionnaire departs from its predecessors in that it was designed for- and validated among French speaking Canadians. METHODS: A focus group of health professionals was used to develop items for the questionnaire, which was later validated with 105 patients suffering from brain cancer. The underlying structure of the questionnaire was investigated using principal component analysis and confirmed using a principal factor analysis. RESULTS: The final version of the questionnaire contains 30 items. Seven multi-item scales, tapping into distinct dimensions of QOL, were uncovered (i.e., functional well-being, symptom severity/fear of death, social support/acceptance of disease, autonomy in personal care, digestive symptomatology, neurocognitive function, and pain). Assessment of reliability revealed elevated internal consistency for each of the seven scales (Cronbach coefficient alpha .65), whereas known-groups validity (anchor-based approach) revealed that the different dimensions uniquely discriminated between patients with different functional levels (Karnofsky Performance Scores) and clinical status (exposure to neurosurgery, radiotherapy, and use of chemotherapy and anticonvulsants). CONCLUSION: Our QOL questionnaire, the Sherbrooke Neuro-Oncology Assessment Scale, or SNAS, taps into both core and disease-specific issues relevant to neuro-oncology patients. It has good validity and reliability, and clearly reflects the multidimensional nature of QOL. Depending on the research focus, it may be used in clinical trials to track the impact of disease and/or treatment on satisfaction, functional status, and general well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207