Persisting Deficits in Health-Related Quality of Life of Colorectal Cancer Survivors 14–24 Years Post-Diagnosis: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors >10 years post-diagnosis is understudied. We aimed to compare the HRQOL of CRC survivors 14-24 years post-diagnosis to that of age- and sex-matched non-cancer controls, stratified by demographic and clinical factors. (2) Methods: We used data from 506 long-term CRC survivors and 1489 controls recruited from German population-based multi-regional studies. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire. We estimated differences in the HRQOL of CRC survivors and controls with multiple regression, adjusted for age at survey, sex, and education, where appropriate. (3) Results: CRC survivors reported poorer social functioning but better health status/QOL than controls. CRC survivors, in general, had higher levels of symptom burden, and in particular diarrhea and constipation, regardless of demographic or clinical factors. In stratified analyses, HRQOL differed by age, sex, cancer type, and having a permanent stoma. (4) Conclusions: Although CRC survivors may have a comparable health status/QOL to controls 14-24 years after diagnosis, they still live with persistent bowel dysfunction that can negatively impact aspects of functioning. Healthcare providers should provide timely and adapted follow-up care to ameliorate potential long-term suffering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".