Weight Loss in Advanced Cancer: Sex Differences in Health-Related Quality of Life and Body Image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight maintenance is a priority in cancer care, but weight loss is common and a serious concern. This study explores if there are sex differences in the perception of weight loss and its association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and body image. Cancer patients admitted to Advanced Medical Home Care were recruited to answer a questionnaire, including characteristics, the HRQoL-questionnaire RAND-36, and a short form of the Body Image Scale. Linear regression analyses stratified by sex and adjusted for age were performed to examine associations between percent weight loss and separate domains of HRQoL and body image score in men and women separately. In total, 99 participants were enrolled, of which 80 had lost weight since diagnosis. In men, an inverse association between weight loss and the HRQoL-domain physical functioning, β = -1.34 (95%CI: -2.44, -0.24), and a positive association with body image distress, β = 0.22 (95%CI: 0.07, 0.37), were found. In women, weight loss was associated with improvement in the HRQoL-domain role limitations due to physical health, β = 2.02 (95%CI: 0.63, 3.41). Following a cancer diagnosis, men appear to experience weight loss more negatively than women do. Recognizing different perceptions of weight loss may be of importance in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".