MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016144784 · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2019.4788

Development of a Patient-Centered Functional Outcomes Questionnaire in Head and Neck Cancer

2020· article· en· W3016144784 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrian Mendez, Hadi Seikaly, Dean T. Eurich, Agnieszka Dzioba, Daniel Aalto, Martin Osswald, Jeffrey Harris, Daniel A. O’Connell, Cathy L. Lazarus, Mark L. Urken, Ilya Likhterov, Raymond L. Chai, Erika Rauscher, Daniel Buchbinder, Devin Okay, Risto‐Pekka Happonen, Ilpo Kinnunen, Heikki Irjala, Tero Soukka, Juhani Laine

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMisericordia Community HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSwallowingHead and neck cancerLarynxCancerHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaPhysical therapySurgeryPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Incorporation of patient perspectives, or patient-reported outcomes, in functional outcome measures has been gaining prominence in the literature on reconstructive surgery. Objective: To create and validate an instrument for measuring the main functional areas of concern for patients with head and neck cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-phase mixed-methods qualitative study was conducted from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016, in a quaternary head and neck oncology center in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Patients were recruited from 3 Head and Neck Research Network sites: University of Alberta (Edmonton, Canada), Mount Sinai Health Network (New York, New York), and University of Turku Hospital (Turku, Finland). The inclusion criteria included 18 years of age or older, diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma involving the subsites of the head and neck (ie, oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx), and at least 1 year since treatment completion. Those patients who were undergoing additional active treatment or with evidence of disease recurrence were excluded. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measures were the clinical correlation of the Edmonton-33 instrument scores with swallowing, speech, dry mouth, and chewing assessment outcomes. Results: In total, 10 patients with head and neck cancer (mean age, 59.6 years; 6 men [60%]) were included in phase 1 of the study, 5 patients (mean age, 55.2 years) were included in phase 2, 10 patients were included in phase 3, and 25 patients with head and neck cancer (mean age, 62.6 years; 14 men [56%]) participated in the phase 4 validation. The Edmonton-33 instrument scores correlated strongly with the swallowing scores of the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (r = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.49-1.0), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Head and Neck 35 (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) (r = -0.73; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.44), and the modified barium swallow test (r = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.94 to -0.25). The instrument scores were also strongly correlated with the Speech Handicap Index scores (r = -0.64; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.31), word intelligibility scores (r = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95), and sentence intelligibility scores (r = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91). A moderate to strong correlation was observed between the Edmonton-33 instrument and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scores in the dry mouth (r = -0.54; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.18) and chewing (r = -0.45; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.06) domains. The factor loading values for the domains of swallowing, speech, dry mouth, and chewing were all greater than 0.3. The mean factor loading values for the items related to swallowing were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.62-0.80) and for the items related to speech were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80). The mean factor loading values for the items related to dry mouth were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59-0.83) and for those related to chewing were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Conclusions and Relevance: The Edmonton-33 appears to be a validated instrument that will allow patients with head and neck cancer to assess and report their own functional outcomes. It could serve as a single comprehensive measure for functional outcomes.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207