Quality of Life Variables Assessment, Before and After Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD): Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of pancreatic cancer is a complex problem, due to late diagnosis, the need for specialized surgical treatment, the large number of relapses and poor survival. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of life of patients with periampulary pancreatic cancer before and after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). MATERIAL & METHOD: The sample was collected in the "Attikon" University General Hospital (Chaidari). It consists of 20 subjects with a mean age of 65.9 years (SD = 10,2 years). For the quality of life measurement, we used the (EORTC) QLQ-C30 version 3.0., as well as the EORTC QOL-PAN26. RESULTS: From the sample of 20 patients who participated, full data were collected for 18 of them during the first month, 17 during the third month and 16 during the sixth month.Regarding symptoms, as they were recorded with the QLQ-30 questionnaire, there was a significant increase of fatigue, a significant reduction of pain and constipation, while economic difficulties increased. As for the mean and median values for the dimensions of the PAN-26 questionnaire during monitoring, there was a significant decrease in pancreatic and liver pain symptoms during follow-up, while the gastrointestinal symptoms increased in frequency. In addition, the body image and sexuality worsened. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer with pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), according to the early survey data using the (EORTC) QLQ-C30 version3.0, and the EORTC QOL-PAN26 questionnaires, seems to have a favorable impact on quality of life, as evidenced by the improvement of most parameters evaluated during the study period.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".