11: Global Access to Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer: The Cost of Inaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A recently published practice-changing multicentre randomized study demonstrated no difference in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between a short RT (arm1: 25 Gy in five fractions) and standard RT (arm 2: 40 Gy in 15 fractions) in elderly and/or frail patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).The purpose was to compare study arms for health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).Methods and Materials: EORTC core questionnaire QLQ-C30 and the brain module QLQ-BN20 were used to assess HR-QoL at baseline prior to RT, four weeks after RT completion and every three months thereafter until the disease progression.QoL scores over time were examined using generalized estimating equation adjusting for the treatment arms.Results: Of 98 randomized patients, 96 were eligible for QoL analysis.There was no difference in global QoL/main function scales/symptoms (except for insomnia) between arms.Improvement of global QoL, social and physical function, fatigue and insomnia were observed when comparing baseline to four months post-treatment, but only significant for insomnia, favouring arm 2. Difference of ≥ 10 points from baseline to four months was demonstrated for social function and insomnia (arm 1), physical function (both arms) and fatigue (arm 2).Global QoL at baseline was significantly worse for arm 1, but statistically insignificant at one month and four months post-radiotherapy.Conclusions: There was overall no difference in HR-QoL between the two arms.A trend toward significant difference was seen in social function, insomnia, and global QoL favouring short RT regimen.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.009 |
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".