Impact of a structured multidisciplinary intervention on quality of life of older adults with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients experience reductions in quality of life (QOL) while receiving cancer treatment and several approaches have been proposed to address QOL issues. In this project, the QOL differences between older adult (age 65+) and younger adult (age 18-64) advanced cancer patients in response to a multidisciplinary intervention designed to improve QOL were examined. METHODS: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360814. Newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy were randomized to active QOL intervention or control groups. Those in the intervention group received six multidisciplinary 90-minute sessions designed to address the five major domains of QOL. Outcomes measured at baseline and weeks 4, 27, and 52 included QOL (Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)) and mood (Profile of Mood States (POMS)). Kruskall-Wallis methodology was used to compare scores between older and younger adult patients randomized to the intervention. RESULTS: Of 131 patients in the larger randomized controlled study, we report data on 54 evaluable patients (16 older adults and 38 younger adults) randomized to the intervention. Older adult patients reported better overall QOL (LASA 74.4 vs. 62.9, p = 0.040), higher social well-being (FACT-G 91.1 vs. 83.3, p = 0.045), and fewer problems with anger (POMS anger-hostility 95.0 vs. 86.4, p = 0.028). Long-term benefits for older patients were seen in the anger-hostility scale at week 27 (92.2 vs. 84.2, p = 0.027) and week 52 (96.3 vs. 85.9, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Older adult patients who received a multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL while undergoing advanced cancer treatments benefited differently in some QOL domains, compared to younger adult patients. Future studies can provide further insight on how to tailor QOL interventions for these age groups.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".