MP31-17 VALIDATING THE BLADDER UTILITY SYMPTOM SCALE (BUSS): A NOVEL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE FOR ALL PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III1 Apr 2016MP31-17 VALIDATING THE BLADDER UTILITY SYMPTOM SCALE (BUSS): A NOVEL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE FOR ALL PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER Nathan Perlis, Kirstin Boehme, Munir Jamal, Karen Bremner, Shabbir Alibhai, Antonio Finelli, Paul Ritvo, Murray Krahn, Rushi Gandhi, and Girish Kulkarni Nathan PerlisNathan Perlis More articles by this author , Kirstin BoehmeKirstin Boehme More articles by this author , Munir JamalMunir Jamal More articles by this author , Karen BremnerKaren Bremner More articles by this author , Shabbir AlibhaiShabbir Alibhai More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Paul RitvoPaul Ritvo More articles by this author , Murray KrahnMurray Krahn More articles by this author , Rushi GandhiRushi Gandhi More articles by this author , and Girish KulkarniGirish Kulkarni More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1270AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Accurately measuring health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) is paramount in bladder cancer (BC) because patients face diverse treatment modalities with unique morbidities. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric validated to measure overall HRQOL for ALL BC patients does not exist. The purpose of this study was to generate a patient-driven, succinct, global HRQOL questionnaire valid and responsive for BC. METHODS Questions were created by a panel of experts based on a conceptual framework of global HRQOL in BC informed by literature review, patient focus groups and expert interviews. The Bladder Utility Symptoms Scale - psychometric (BUSS-P) was pilot tested with experts and patients using cognitive methods until saturation was reached. To determine BUSS-P validation and reliability, field testing was performed at both an academic and community hospital, the University Health Network (Toronto, ON) and Trillium Health Partners (Mississauga, ON), respectively. We used purposive sampling to accrue 117 BC patients. All BC stages (Ta to metastatic disease) were included with patients receiving all forms of treatment including intravesical therapy, surgery, radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy. Patients completed the BUSS-P and 5 other HRQOL instruments (FACT-Bl, BCI, EQ-5D, SF-36, TTO). Whole and subscale Spearmans rank correlations (rs), as well as comparisons of BUSS-P scores across known-groups were used to assess construct validity. To assess reliability, patients repeated the questionnaires at 4 weeks. RESULTS The BUSS contains 10 questions covering generic and BC-specific domains. In field testing, BUSS-P exhibited high whole scale correlation with FACT-Bl (rs=0.82, p<0.0001) and EQ-5D (rs=0.67, p<0.0001). Similarly, BUSS-P demonstrated substantial-to-high subscale correlations with EQ-5D (emotional: rs=0.71, p<0.01), FACT-Bl (physical: rs=-0.70, p<0.0001), and BCI (urinary issues: rs=-0.62, p<0.01). Median BUSS scores (M) were also significantly different (p<0.01) across patients with differing disease severity: non-muscle invasive BC (M=85.0), cystectomy (M=76.2), and metastatic BC patients (M=66.7). There was excellent test-retest reliability (ICC 0.78). Greater than 95% of respondents completed all BUSS questions, suggesting a comprehensible questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that the BUSS is a valid PRO to measure HRQOL among BC patients and is useable for patients regardless of treatment exposure including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e426 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Nathan Perlis More articles by this author Kirstin Boehme More articles by this author Munir Jamal More articles by this author Karen Bremner More articles by this author Shabbir Alibhai More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Paul Ritvo More articles by this author Murray Krahn More articles by this author Rushi Gandhi More articles by this author Girish Kulkarni More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".