Health-related quality of life comparisons in French and English-speaking populations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes across three culturally different groups of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design with convenience samples. PARTICIPANTS: Study subjects were English- and French-speaking H&N cancer patients recruited in Quebec and France. INTERVENTION: Subjects completed EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 HRQL instruments 3-6 months following the completion of cancer therapy. The former (the core instrument) is a HRQL instrument designed to be used as an outcome measure in patients with any form of cancer, while the latter instrument (the H&N module) is an outcome measure specific to people with H&N cancer. Both instruments are designed to generate domain scores rather than an overall evaluation. The core instrument has 15 domains and the H&N module 18. RESULTS: In the second study, of 33 HRQL domains tested, only 'head and neck pain' and 'constipation' were associated significantly with cultural background, with French-speaking Canadians reporting higher levels of both. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that cultural background is not related to the large majority of HRQL domains assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 instruments, thereby enabling international comparisons of (oral) HRQL.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".