Quality of life (QOL) and physical function in one-year adult and elderly survivors of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7071 Background: The treatment of AML with intensive chemotherapy (IC) is associated with significant short-term toxicities. We previously showed similar impairments in QOL and physical function among younger (age 18-59) and older (age 60+) patients with AML at diagnosis, with similar recovery over 3 cycles of IC. We now comprehensively describe QOL and physical function recovery over 1 year from diagnosis. Methods: Younger and older AML patients undergoing IC without stem cell transplant were enrolled in a prospective, longitudinal study. Assessments were done at baseline (pre-IC) and at 7 time points over the next year. At each visit, patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-Fatigue to measure QOL and fatigue, respectively, in addition to 3 physical function tests (grip strength, 2-minute walk test (2MWT), and timed chair stands). Analyses involved multivariable linear regression analyses stratified by age group. Results: 243 patients were recruited (147 younger and 96 older, 56% male). Attrition was greater in older adults due to death or disease progression/relapse. Among patients remaining in remission after IC, global QOL and fatigue improved significantly over time (p<0.001 for both); trends were similar between older and younger patients. All 5 QOL domains improved or remained stable over time; the greatest improvements were seen in social function and role function and were similar in both age groups. Grip strength increased slightly over time (p=0.04) whereas both timed chair stands (p<0.001) and the 2MWT (p<0.001) had moderate to large improvements, with trends toward greater improvement in younger patients (p=0.07 and 0.09, respectively). Results were similar when missing data were imputed. Conclusions: Survivors of AML after successful conventional chemotherapy achieve significant improvements in QOL, fatigue, and physical function over time. The course of recovery is remarkably similar in younger and older AML patients, although significant attrition in older adults is a noteworthy limitation. These data suggest that appropriately selected older patients do well following IC for AML.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".