Financial and occupational impact of low anterior resection syndrome in rectal cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess bowel-related financial stress and strain and to evaluate its association with global quality of life. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study with cross-sectional follow-up including consecutive patients who underwent restorative proctectomy for neoplastic disease of the rectum at a single university-affiliated hospital in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Bowel-related financial impact and occupational impact were compared between patients with major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and those with minor/no LARS. The association between LARS, bowel-related financial impact and global quality of life (QoL) was then assessed in a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 180 eligible rectal cancer survivors who were contacted, 154 completed the questionnaires (response rate 47.1%) at a median follow-up of 57.5 months (interquartile range 34.1-98.1) after proctectomy. Individuals with major LARS reported a higher prevalence of bowel-related financial stress (53.2% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001) and strain (42.2% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001) compared with those with minor/no LARS. Among those who were working preoperatively (n = 100), the majority of participants with major LARS reported an impact of their new bowel function on their ability to work (70.6%), including delayed return to work (44.1%), the need to change schedules (35.3%) or roles (20.6%), and complete long-term medical absence from work (14.7%). On multiple logistic regression, major LARS with financial impact (OR 4.50, 95% CI 1.57-13.77) was associated with low global QoL compared with minor/no LARS. CONCLUSION: Major LARS was associated with considerable financial stress and strain and difficulties in returning to work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".