Prospective international validation of the Quality of Life in Myelodysplasia Scale (QUALMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease-specific measures of quality of life can improve assessment of disease-related symptoms and psychosocial sequelae. We report on the development and validation of the Quality of Life in Myelodysplasia Scale (QUALMS), a 38-item assessment tool for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). In 2014-2015, a multi-center cohort of patients with myelodysplasia completed the QUALMS, as well as the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Anemia Scale (FACT-An); a second administration was undertaken three to six months later. A total of 255 patients from the United States, Canada and Italy participated. Median age was 72 years, 56.1% were men, and the International Prognostic Scoring System distribution was 40.4% low, 42.0% intermediate-1, 13.3% intermediate-2 and 2.3% high. QUALMS scores ranged from 24 to 99 (higher scores are better), with a mean of 67.2 [standard deviation (SD)=15.2]. The measure was internally consistent (α=0.92), and moderately correlated with the multi-item QLQ-C30 scales and the FACT-An (r=-0.65 to 0.79; all P<0.001). Patients with hemoglobin of 8 g/dL or under scored lower than those with hemoglobin over 10 g/dL (61.8 vs 71.1; P<0.001), and transfusion-dependent patients scored lower than transfusion-independent patients (62.4 vs 69.7; P<0.01). Principal components analysis revealed "physical burden", "benefit-finding", and "emotional burden" subscales. There was good overall test-retest reliability among those with stable hemoglobin (r=0.81), and significant changes for patients hospitalized or with infections between administrations (both P<0.01). These data suggest the QUALMS is a valuable tool for assessing MDS-specific quality of life in the modern treatment era.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".