The relationship between corticosteroids and symptoms in patients with primary brain tumors: utility of the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire–Chronic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids can have many side effects that impact the patient's quality of life and functional status. The Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire-Chronic (DSQ-C) was developed to report corticosteroid side effects. This study's objective was to evaluate the utility of the DSQ-C and report associated signs and symptoms in brain tumor patients. METHODS: Data collection included demographic and disease characteristics and the DSQ-C. Descriptive statistics were used to report associations among variables. Linear regression models were applied to assess the effects of the cumulative daily dose (mg/d × total d) on DSQ-C scores. Psychometrics included factor analysis to assess construct validity and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. RESULTS: Ninety-six adult patients with primary (77%) or metastatic (23%) brain tumors participated, with 74% on corticosteroids. Participants were primarily white (83%) males (65%) between 20 and 75 years of age (median, 53). Median corticosteroid dose duration was 4 mg/day for 1 month (range, 0-26 mo). The DSQ-C scores ranged from 17 to 54 (mean of 27), with 35% reporting increased appetite and trouble sleeping. Factor analysis indicated 6 underlying constructs explaining 53% of variance. DSQ-C internal consistency (reliability) was 0.77. The DSQ-C discriminated between patients who were on steroids and those who were not (P < .01), and cumulative dose predicted DSQ-C scores (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the potential use of the DSQ-C as a screening tool for side effects associated with corticosteroid use in brain tumor patients. Future analyses should include longitudinal evaluation of severity and biologic underpinnings of variability of timing and severity of symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".