MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W28090792

The feasibility, reliability and validity of the Malay McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire--Cardiff Short Form (MMQOL-CSF) in Malaysian advanced cancer population.

2005· article· en· W28090792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pei Lin Lua, Sam Salek, Ilora Finlay, A G I Boay, M S Rahimah

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalayMedicineCronbach's alphaReliability (semiconductor)Quality of life (healthcare)PopulationValidityCancerGerontologyFamily medicinePsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment is important in healthcare outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, reliability and validity of the Malay McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire--Cardiff Short Form (MMQOL-CSF) in advanced cancer population. Patients either completed the MMQOL-CSF alone or in addition to its long version. The study recruited 116 participants (average age = 44 years old). On average, MMQOL-CSF was completed in 5.4 minutes. Most domains showed evidence of reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.76-0.92). Correlation with its long version was moderate to strong (r(s) = 0.54-0.87). The MMQOL-CSF was a feasible, reliable and valid HRQoL instrument in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→