A prospective evaluation of the attitudes of patients, physicians and nurses using a computer-assisted quality of life instrument (LCSS-QL) in a multicenter clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6123 Background: The LCSS has been computerized (LCSS-QL) for inexpensive hand-held devices (pocket-pc) to enhance feasibility, provide immediate results, and automatically record data. Correlation coefficient between paper form and electronic version is excellent (r=0.93). This analysis determines the acceptability and value of LCSS-QL assessed by patients and health care professionals. Methods: NSCLC patients utilized LCSS-QL in a clinical trial and also completed a form evaluating their experiences after their first and third treatment cycles. All received docetaxel and platinum. Eleven physicians and nurses administered LCSS-QL and completed an evaluation form. The evaluation included: time required, satisfaction with the process, value of assessment, impact on communication, resource utilization. Results: The evaluation form was completed by 126 patients (cycle 1) and 94 (75%) completing cycle 3. Baseline characteristics: Stage III/IV 29/71%; median KPS 80%; 56% male; median age 69 yrs. Results are in the table : All physicians considered their time per patient was not lengthened and 80% felt that QL evaluation could save time. 67% of nurses felt the instrument could save time, while 83% felt that their time with patients was lengthened. Utilization: 67% of professionals reported QL evaluation would identify earlier patients not benefiting from chemo; 91% were more aware of pain issues. Conclusions: Patients and health-care professionals found using a validated QL instrument in a computerized form via a hand-held device was easy, added value and satisfaction while enhancing communication and awareness of PRO issues. This electronic format added no physician time. These results indicate that this QL evaluation method should be used more frequently in clinical trials and patient management. Supported in part by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis Canada, Laval, QC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".