Assessment of Quality of Life in MA.17: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Letrozole After 5 Years of Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of letrozole compared with placebo after adjuvant tamoxifen on quality of life (QOL) in the MA.17 trial. METHODS: Patients completed the Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Menopause Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) at baseline, 6 months, and annually. Mean change scores from baseline were compared between groups for summary measures and domains. A response analysis compared the proportion of patients who demonstrated an important change in QOL. RESULTS: Of 5,187 randomly assigned women in the trial, 3,612 (69.9%) participated in the QOL substudy: 1,799 were allocated to placebo and 1,813 were allocated to letrozole. No differences were seen between groups in mean change scores from baseline for the SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Small (< 0.2 standard deviations) but statistically significant differences in mean change scores from baseline were seen for the SF-36 domains of physical functioning (12 months), bodily pain (6 months) and vitality (6 and 12 months), and the MENQOL vasomotor (6, 12, and 24 months) and sexual domains (12 and 24 months). On the response analysis, a significant difference was seen between groups for the bodily pain domain (percentage of patients reporting a worsening of QOL, 47% placebo v 51% letrozole; P = .009) and the vasomotor domain (22% placebo v 29% letrozole; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Letrozole did not have an adverse impact on overall QOL. Small effects were seen in some domains consistent with a minority of patients experiencing changes in QOL compatible with a reduction in estrogen synthesis.
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 | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".