Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With High-Grade Glioma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract AIMS Several studies have evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) through patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. No systematic review has summarised this increasingly important research area. METHOD Seven electronic databases were systematically searched. Primary research articles evaluating HRQoL in HGG patients through PRO assessment were included. Global, physical, mental, and social health were summarised descriptively. Risk of bias (RoB) of included studies was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool or Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Quality of study reporting was assessed using a modified ISOQOL checklist. RESULTS Twenty-six studies were included (4,451 patients): cross-sectional (n=14), longitudinal (n=12). RoB and quality of reporting were satisfactory. Ten PRO measurement instruments were identified, of which EORTC-QLQ-C30 (n=15) was utilised most frequently. Fatigue significantly impacted both physical and global health. HRQoL improved after surgery but recurrence, fatigue, and difficulties with activities of daily living were associated with worsening HRQoL. HGG patients had higher anxiety and depression scores than the general population, negatively impacting overall HRQoL. Social health was superior for patients with good supportive networks, but a majority do not return to full-time employment post-diagnosis. Long-term survivors reported improvements in their physical, social and emotional functioning over time. CONCLUSION With HGG life expectancy less than 12 months post-diagnosis, HRQoL is of paramount importance to patients. PRO assessment of HRQoL can be used to evaluate self-reported functioning and well-being in both routine practice and clinical trial settings and provide opportunities for timely intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".