Quality of life outcomes in incidental and operated meningiomas (QUALMS): a cross-sectional cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated meningioma patients' longer-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following diagnosis and treatment, particularly in those with incidental, actively monitored tumours. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was completed. Adult patients with surgically managed or actively monitored meningioma with more than five years of follow-up were included. The patient-reported outcome measures RAND SF-36, EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 were used to evaluate HRQoL. HRQoL scores were compared to normative population data. Outcome determinants were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: 243 patient responses were analyzed, and the mean time from diagnosis was 9.8 years (range 5.0-40.3 years). Clinically relevant, statistically significant HRQoL impairments were identified across several SF-36 and QLQ-C30 domains. Increasing education level (β = 2.9, 95% CI 0.9 to 4.9), P = .004), employment (β = 7.7, 95% CI 2.2 to 13.1, P = .006) and absence of postoperative complications (β=-6.7, 95% CI -13.2 to (-)0.3, P = .041) were associated with a better QLQ-C30 summary score. Other tumour and treatment variables were not. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the longer-term disease burden of patients with meningioma nearly one decade after diagnosis or surgery. Patients with actively monitored meningioma have similar HRQoL to operated meningioma patients. Healthcare professionals should be mindful of HRQoL impairments and direct patients to sources of support as needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".