Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A systematic review was performed to explore the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among cancer patients receiving PD-(L)1 inhibitors compared to those receiving traditional cytotoxic therapy. Areas covered: Citations from PubMed and the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting library were examined. Cross-references from original studies and review articles were also reviewed. Eligible trials included randomized controlled trials of cancer patients treated with one of the PD-(L)1 inhibitors and reporting HRQoL outcomes. A total of 11 studies were included in the current review. PD-(L)1 inhibitors were associated with a consistent prolongation of the time to symptomatic deterioration. This was shown with the three agents (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab) as well as across a variety of solid tumors (lung cancer, melanoma, head and neck cancer and urothelial cancer). Moreover, PD-(L)1 inhibitor therapy was associated with better symptomatic control at different follow-up points. This was observed regardless of the agent used of the solid tumor treated. Expert commentary: Across a variety of solid tumor indications as well as a variety of PD-(L)1 inhibitors, the use of PD-(L)1 inhibitors is associated with an improvement in the quality of life. The utility of patient-reported outcomes in predicting clinical benefit from these agents needs to be explored further.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it