Development and psychometric properties of the Prostate Cancer Radiation Toxicity Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
15631 Background: The objective of this study was to construct a prostate cancer late radiation toxicity (PCRT) questionnaire with associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains. Methods: A literature review of prostate cancer toxicity scales and HRQoL instruments generated a list of potential items for inclusion into the PCRT. An initial questionnaire was subjected to both patient (n=8) and expert (n=7) opinion. A pilot study (n=37) assessed patient feedback, ease of administration, and acceptance. Item reduction (n=100) based on response heterogeneity, factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha analysis was performed. Reliability testing (n=274) was performed using test- retest methodology and calculation of intraclass correlation coefficients (CC). Validity testing (n=274) consisted of discriminant and various construct validity tests (1. calculation of Pearson CC between the PCRT and different HRQoL instruments, and 2. comparison of mean brachytherapy versus external-beam radiation therapy domain scores by Student's t-test). Results: Construction of an initial 29 item (5 point Likert scale) questionnaire with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and sexual symptom and bother items was performed. The pilot study demonstrated that the PCRT was comprehensive (94%) and easy to administer (1.3% missing data). Item reduction resulted in three HRQoL subscales: (4 item GU alpha = 0.639, 12 item GI = 0.859, 5 item sexual = 0.700). Test-retest reliability demonstrated intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.811 (GU), 0.842 (GI), and 0.740 (sexual). Discriminate validity analysis demonstrated Pearson CC of 0.449 (GU-GI), 0.200 (sexual-GU), and 0.09 (sexual-GI). Content validity analysis demonstrated significant correlations between analogous subscales between PCRT and the PCQoL (range 0.35–0.78). Smaller correlations exist between the PCRT and FACT-G (0.19–0.39) and SF-36 (0.03–0.34). Difference scores between brachytherapy and external-beam favoured brachytherapy [4.13 (GI, p=0.02), 3.50 (sexual, p=0.36), and 3.63 (GU, p=0.14)]. Conclusion: The HRQoL subscales generated from the PCRT have been shown to have good internal consistency with documented reliability and validity. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".