Physical function patient‐reported outcomes among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The physical challenges faced by adolescents and young adults (AYA) after a cancer diagnosis may be different from those experienced by paediatric and older adult cancer patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools that can be useful in exploring the experiences of AYAs and identifying important issues, recurrent themes and areas to potentially improve quality of life. OBJECTIVE: We compared patient-reported physical function outcomes between AYAs diagnosed with cancer and non-cancer controls. METHOD: This paper builds on a scoping review published in early 2023 and focuses on PROMs related to physical function. RESULTS: This systematic review includes 16 studies that measured and reported on physical function PROMs in AYA cancer survivors compared with their cancer-free peers. Of these studies, 14 found that physical function in AYA survivors was significantly worse. This paper also includes a meta-analysis conducted on 5 studies using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 to measure physical function, which found that physical function score was an average of 7.03 (95% CI: -10.21, -3.86) points lower in the AYA cancer group, compared to their cancer free-peers, a difference that is clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: The results overwhelmingly demonstrate that AYAs post a cancer diagnosis have worse health-related quality of life from a physical function perspective than their cancer-free peers, providing a compelling argument for the need to address this issue. All but one of the studies were cross-sectional, which highlights the need for further assessment of this group longitudinally throughout their cancer journey.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".