Evaluation of Patient-Reported Symptoms and Functioning after Treatment for Endometrial Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall survival of women with endometrial cancer is excellent after management. Different management strategies are associated with variable patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Evaluating PROs in the follow-up period can aid in better counseling and intervention for PRO improvement. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of the Slovenian translation of the EORTC QLQ-EN24 assessment scale. Women treated at the University Medical Centre Maribor, Slovenia, between January 2016 and December 2019 were invited to report their symptoms using the EORTC QLQ-EN24 questionnaire. Data were correlated with treatment modalities and clinical characteristics. The median age of participants in our study was 61 years old. PROs were not specific to therapy or clinical characteristics. Overall, women who more frequently reported gastrointestinal symptoms, muscular pain, or back pain also had statistically more frequently decreased levels of PROs in other assessed areas. Women who reported sexual or vaginal problems more often reported significantly poorer body images. Sexual activity within 4 weeks prior to completing the scale was reported by 39% of women. Sexual functioning assessments also showed important correlations between sexual interest, enjoyment, and activity. Individualized follow-ups addressing PROs should be offered to better address concerns and improve long-term outcomes in women with endometrial cancer.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".