MP19-03 COMPARISON OF FACT-G SCORES WITH CANCER AND GENERAL POPULATION NORMS IN CANADIAN PATIENTS UNDERGOING RADICAL CYSTECTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making II (MP19)1 Sep 2021MP19-03 COMPARISON OF FACT-G SCORES WITH CANCER AND GENERAL POPULATION NORMS IN CANADIAN PATIENTS UNDERGOING RADICAL CYSTECTOMY Julie Trudel, Ryan McLarty, and Conrad Maciejewski Julie TrudelJulie Trudel More articles by this author , Ryan McLartyRyan McLarty More articles by this author , and Conrad MaciejewskiConrad Maciejewski More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002004.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is often used as a generic measure in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment among cancer patients. Its reference values relating to the general population and patients with different diseases are useful for the interpretation of HRQOL scores and allow a better understanding of the patients needs and HRQOL. No study to date has yet compared FACT-G normative data scores to those of Canadian patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. The objective of this study was to compare our patients pre-cystectomy FACT-G scores with US cancer and general population norms. METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Diana Wood Cancer Survivorship Clinic at The Ottawa Hospital between January 2019 and August 2020. HRQOL was evaluated by the FACT-G and raw scores were obtained for each FACT-G subscale, higher scores indicating better HRQOL. Effect sizes (ES-Hedge's g statistics), confidence intervals and minimal clinical significant differences (MCIDs) were used to compare pre FACT-G subscale scores with normative data. As suggested by current literature, a change of at least 5% to 10% within the instrument range was used as an estimate calculation of the MCID. RESULTS: 55 patients completed the FACT-G questionnaire before RC. The mean age was 67 years (SD: 10 years), 71% were male, 80% were in a married/common law partnership and 84% lived with someone. Overall, ES between pre-surgery FACT-G subscale scores and US cancer norms were small (ES≤0.2) and the MCIDs were less than 5% of change in the FACT-G measurement scale except for the dimension “Physical Well-Being” (ES=0.3, reported MCID value of 1.77, 6% of change). ES calculated between FACT-G scores and those from the US general population showed small effect sizes (ES≤0.2) for all FACT-G subscales except for the dimensions “Emotional Well-Being” (Medium ES=-0.56, reported MCID value of 2.7, 11% of change) and “Social Well-Being” (Medium ES=0.37, reported MCID value of 2.5, 9% of change). CONCLUSIONS: In our survivorship clinic, patients undergoing RC reported broadly similar FACT-G scores to US cancer population norms, with a notable exception of increased perceived “Physical Well-Being”. When comparing our data to US population norms, we once again showed similar scores on FACT-G subscales with the exception of decreased “Emotional Well-Being” and higher “Social Well-Being”. These results emphasize unique aspects of the bladder cancer survivorship experience, and highlight the value of patient reported assessment of HRQOL in RC patients. Source of Funding: The Diana Wood Bladder Cancer Survivorship Program © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e328-e328 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Julie Trudel More articles by this author Ryan McLarty More articles by this author Conrad Maciejewski More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".