Longitudinal analysis of quality‐of‐life outcomes in children during treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group AALL0932 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with average-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (AR-ALL) face many challenges that can adversely affect their quality of life (QOL). However, to the authors' knowledge, patterns and predictors of QOL impairment during therapy have not been well characterized to date. METHODS: Patients with AR-ALL who were enrolled on the Children's Oncology Group AALL0932 trial were offered participation in this prospective cohort study if they were aged ≥4 years at the time of diagnosis and had an English-speaking parent. At approximately 2 months, 8 months, 17 months, 26 months, and 38 months (boys only) after diagnosis, parents completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales Version 4.0 (PedsQL4.0) and McMaster Family Assessment Device instruments for QOL (physical, emotional, and social functioning) and family functioning, respectively. The proportions of individuals scoring in the impaired range (2 standard deviations below the population mean) were calculated at each time point. Longitudinal impairment patterns and predictors were examined. RESULTS: A total of 594 participants with AR-ALL were diagnosed at a mean age of 6.0 years (standard deviation, 1.6 years). At 2 months, a substantial proportion of participants had impaired scores for physical (36.5%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 32.3%-40.8%) and emotional (26.2%; 95% CI, 22.5%-30.2%) functioning compared with population norms of 2.3%. These elevations persisted at 26 months. Emotional impairment at 2 months (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5-7.7) was found to significantly predict emotional impairment at 26 months. In repeated measures analysis with multivariate modeling, unhealthy family functioning (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1) significantly predicted emotional impairment controlling for age and sex. QOL outcomes were similar between sexes at the end of therapy (26 months for girls and 38 months for boys). CONCLUSIONS: Many children with AR-ALL experience physical and emotional functioning impairment that begins early in treatment and persists. Early screening may identify high-risk patients who might benefit from family-based interventions. Cancer 2018;124:571-9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".