MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887093231 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.7027

Swedish Version of the Distress Thermometer: Validity Evidence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

2018· article· en· W2887093231 on OpenAlex
Elisabeth Kenne Sarenmalm, Salmir Nasic, Cecilia Håkanson, Joakim Öhlén, Eva Carlsson, Monica Pettersson, Richard Sawatzky

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesTrinity Western UniversityProvidence Health Care
FundersCentrum fÖr Personcentrerad VårdGöteborgs UniversitetCanada Research ChairsVästra Götalandsregionen
KeywordsMedicineDiscriminant validityCronbach's alphaQuality of life (healthcare)DistressConstruct validityConvergent validityClinical psychologyPopulationColorectal cancerConfirmatory factor analysisInternal medicinePsychometricsCancerInternal consistencyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The objective of this study was to validate the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT), including the accompanying Problem List (PL), in a Swedish population of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A total of 488 patients diagnosed with CRC completed the DT/PL and EORTC core quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) before surgery. Construct validity of the PL was analyzed using a confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability (ICR) was tested using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Correlations between the reported PL areas and QLQ-C30 function scales were used to explore convergent validity. Discriminant validity was examined by evaluating associations between the DT and QLQ-C30 measures of overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Findings showed that the Swedish translation of the DT/PL is consistent with the original English version. The DT has good ICR, with the total number of reported problems significantly correlating with DT scores (r=0.67; P<.001). Analysis of convergent validity indicated that the PL areas significantly correlated with QLQ-C30 function scales, with emotional problems showing the highest correlation (r=0.76; P<.001), and item-level correlation analyses showed significant correlations between symptoms. There was also good discriminant validity between the DT and the QLQ-C30 in terms of HRQoL, including overall health status (r=−0.49; P<.001) and overall quality of life (r=−0.57; P<.001). Furthermore, there was good discriminant validity between the DT and QLQ-C30 regarding poor, moderate, and excellent HRQoL. Conclusions: These findings provide validity evidence regarding the DT, including the PL. Findings also show that the DT has good potential for screening distress-related practical, family, emotional, and physical problems during the cancer trajectory in Swedish-speaking patients. Additionally, the DT seems to be an effective screening tool to detect patients with poor, moderate, and excellent HRQoL.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.264 · 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