Effect of disease burden on health-related quality of life in patientswith malignant gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden imposed by disease recurrence in patients with high-grade gliomas is not well documented. We studied the frequency of self-report symptoms and the effects on health-related quality of life in patients who had recurrent glioblastoma multiforme or anaplastic astrocytoma and who had a Karnofsky performance score > or = 70. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Items (QLQ-C30) and the Brain Cancer Module (BCM20) before initiation of treatment for first recurrence of disease. Six symptoms (fatigue, uncertainty about the future, motor difficulties, drowsiness, communication difficulties, and headache) were reported with a frequency > 50% by both groups of patients. An additional two symptoms (visual problems and pain) were also reported with frequencies of > 50% by patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Most of the symptoms were likely due to recurrence, but previous radiation therapy and on-going corticosteroid treatment may have also been casual factors for fatigue, whereas uncertainty about the future and pain were probably nonspecific for brain cancer. Problems with motor functioning, vision, leg strength, and pain were reported more frequently by patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme than by those with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma. Scores on health-related quality-of-life functioning scales were similar in the two groups. Finally, the scores for patients who had recurrent high-grade gliomas and a Karnofsky performance score > or = 70 were compared with the reported health-related quality of life scores of patients with other cancers. Their scores were similar to those of patients with metastatic cancers and worse than those of patients with localized cancers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".