Biometrics and quality of life of lymphoma patients: A longitudinal <scp>mixed‐model</scp> approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge Engineering has become essential in the fields of Medical and Health Care with emphasis for helping citizens to improve their health and quality of life. This includes individual methods and techniques in health‐related knowledge acquisition and representation and their application in the construction of intelligent systems capable of using the acquired information to improve the patients' health and/or quality of life. Haemato‐oncological diseases can provide significant disability and suffering, with severe symptoms and psychological distress. They can create difficulties in fulfilling professional, family and social roles, affecting an individual's quality of life. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) is a subjective concept but there is also an objective component related to physiological indicators. Some of these physiological indicators can be easily assessed by wearable technology such heart rate variability (HRV). This paper introduces an intelligent system to assess, in real‐time, potential HRV indices, that can predict HRQoL in lymphoma patients throughout chemotherapy treatment and to account the individuals' variability. The system is based on wearable technology and intelligent processing of the patients' biometric information to assess some quality of life related parameters. A longitudinal study was conducted among 16 lymphoma patients using this intelligent system. Mixed‐effect regression models were performed to investigate predictors for and time effects on HRQoL. There were no significant changes in all HRQoL domains over time. Some quality of life domains revealed similar time trends as HRV indices. These HRV indices also have a significant effect on the domains of quality of life.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".