Do patients with brain metastases selected for whole brain radiotherapy have worse baseline quality of life as compared to those for radiosurgery or neurosurgery (with or without whole brain radiotherapy)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose was to examine the baseline characteristics, symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients who receive different treatments for brain metastases. METHODS: Eligible patients were divided and analysed based on their treatment: whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or neurosurgery with or without WBRT. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) items were grouped according to different domains for summary scores. The domains used for summary scores were physical, social/family, emotional, functional well-being (FWB) and additional concerns. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, with 37 treated with WBRT alone and 83 with SRS or neurosurgery with or without WBRT. Of the 50 baseline FACT-Br items, only five items (I feel ill; I get support from my friends; I worry about dying; I have difficulty expressing my thoughts, I am able to put my thoughts into action) were statistically worse in patients treated with WBRT alone (P<0.05). Patients who received SRS or surgery with or without WBRT had statistically (P<0.05) higher scores for the FWB domain, additional concerns domain, and FACT-G total scores, indicating better QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients selected for WBRT alone reported statistically different baseline QOL as compared to patients who were treated with SRS or neurosurgery (with or without WBRT).
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".