Cognition and quality of life after chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (RT) vs. RT for pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas: Radiation therapy oncology group trial 9402
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20519 Background: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 compared PCV chemotherapy plus radiation therapy (PCV+RT) versus RT alone for anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Here we report 1) longitudinal changes in cognition and quality of life, 2) effects of patient factors and treatments on cognition, quality of life and survival, and 3) prognostic implications of cognition and quality of life. Methods: Cognition was assessed by Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and quality of life by Brain-Quality of Life (B-QOL) by repeat assessments. Scores were analyzed for survivors and within five years of death. Shared parameter models evaluated MMSE/B-QOL with survival. Results: For survivors, MMSE and B-QOL scores were similar longitudinally and between treatments. For those dying within 5 years, MMSE scores were stable initially, while B-QOL scores decreased; both declined rapidly in the last year of life and similarly between arms. In the aggregate, scores decreased over time (P=0.0413 for MMSE; P=0.0016 for B-QOL) and were superior with age < 50 years (P<0.001 for MMSE; P=0.0554 for B-QOL) and KPS 80–100 (P<0.001). Younger age and higher KPS were associated with longer survival. After adjusting for patient factors and drop-out, survival was longer after PCV+RT (HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.49–0.9, P=0.0084; HR=0.74, 95% CI=0.54–1.01, P=0.0592) in models with MMSE and B-QOL. There were no differences in MMSE and B-QOL scores between arms (P=0.4752 and P=0.2767, respectively); higher scores predicted longer survival. Conclusions: MMSE and B-QOL scores held steady in both arms for survivors. For those who died, B-QOL scores declined slowly until the last year of life, then rapidly. Younger, fitter patients had better MMSE and B-QOL scores and longer survival. 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".