Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our study evaluated the perioperative quality of life (QoL) in Cushing's disease (CD) patients, along with correlations between patient variables and cure rate. METHODS: The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF)-36 questionnaire was used to assess perioperative QoL. Patients completed one survey preoperatively and two surveys postoperatively. Retrospective chart review was conducted to collect SF-36 data as well as examine variables including: age, hospital stay, size of tumour, pathological diagnosis, timing of cure, and complication rates. Statistical analysis was conducted on the scores reported by the SF-36, and were compared with the normal Canadian population values, and to a sample of QoL from nonfunctioning pituitary tumour patients. This project was approved by University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board #H15-01572. RESULTS: In general, CD patients have relatively poor QoL that does improve as expected when cured, but not quite to normal levels. Factors associated with cure included presence of macroadenoma, confirmatory pathology, and patient age. Postoperative timing of cure appears to affect the durability of cure, with an immediate cure having a higher durability rate than delayed cure. Most recurrences occurred within 10 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This review of the perioperative QoL in CD helps to illustrate how QoL changes throughout the treatment process, how QoL compares to normal Canadian population levels, and how QoL compares to patients with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. As treatment outcome has such a high impact on QoL, the variables identified in this study will help to better inform patients about the treatment course.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".