The Bladder Utility Symptom Scale: A Novel Patient Reported Outcome Instrument for Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health related quality of life is important in bladder cancer care and clinical decision making because patients must choose between diverse treatment modalities with unique morbidities. A patient reported outcome measure of overall health related quality of life for bladder cancer regardless of disease severity and treatment could benefit clinical care and research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective questionnaire development was completed in 3 parts. In study 1 the BUSS (Bladder Utility Symptom Scale) questions were created by experts using a conceptual framework of bladder cancer health related quality of life generated through patient focus groups. In study 2 patients with bladder cancer, including those treated with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, completed the BUSS and 5 health related quality of life instruments at baseline and 4 weeks to assess validity and test-retest reliability. External validity was then explored in study 3 by administering the BUSS to 578 patients online and at clinics. Construct validity was assessed by whole and subscale Spearman rank correlations, and by comparisons of BUSS scores across known groups. RESULTS: = 0.69, p <0.0001). BUSS scores were lower in patients with comorbidity and advanced disease. Cognitive debriefing and the 94% completion rate suggested good comprehensibility. There was excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.79). Limitations included an extended time from diagnosis in many patients. CONCLUSIONS: The BUSS is a reliable and valid patient reported outcome instrument for health related quality of life in all patients with bladder cancer regardless of the treatment received or the stage of disease.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".