The Effect of Comorbidity and Socioeconomic Status on Sexual and Urinary Function and on General Health-Related Quality of Life in Men Treated with Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Different treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa) may be associated with similar overall survival but may demonstrate important differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Therefore, valid interpretation of cancer control outcomes requires adjustment for HRQOL. AIM: To assess the effect of comorbidity and socioeconomic status (SES) on sexual and urinary function as well as general HRQOL in men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for PCa. METHODS: We sent a self-addressed mail survey, composed of the research and development short form 36-item health survey, the PCa-specific University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Prostate Cancer Index (PCI), as well as a battery of items addressing SES and lifetime prevalence of comorbidity, to 4,546 men treated with RP in Quebec between 1988 and 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between comorbidity, SES, and HRQOL was tested and quantified using univariable and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Survey responses from 2,415 participants demonstrated that comorbidity and SES are strongly related to sexual, urinary, and general HRQOL in univariable and multivariable analyses. In multivariable models, the presence of comorbid conditions was associated with significantly worse HRQOL, as evidenced by lower scale scores by as much as 17/100 points in general domains, and by as much as 10/100 points in PCa-specific domains. Favorable SES characteristics were related to higher general (up to 9/100 points) and higher PCa-specific (up to 8/100 points) HRQOL scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity and SES are strongly associated with sexual, urinary and general HRQOL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".