Managing Patients on Endocrine Therapy: Focus on Quality-of-Life Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the health-related quality of life (QOL) of women treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To review the limited QOL data from randomized trials of tamoxifen versus placebo and ovarian ablation versus none. To discuss QOL results from randomized trials of aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen or placebo for adjuvant therapy of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer. RESULTS: QOL is generally good in up to 3 years of follow-up with either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. Vasomotor and sexual complaints remain problematic, however, in only a small proportion of women. There are fewer data regarding the QOL effects of ovarian ablation, which may nonetheless be more substantial. CONCLUSION: Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors cause specific vasomotor or gynecologic symptoms, which may affect sexual function. However, clinical benefits of these agents are generally achieved without major detrimental effect on overall QOL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".