Patients’ voices matter: Translating pretreatment patient-reported outcomes into high and low health-related quality of life provides a new clinical aspect on prognosis and survival in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e23165 Background: Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures collected prior to treatment initiation have been shown to be prognostic of disease outcomes and survival in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), However, these HRQoL measures are usually expressed as numbers from a scale (e.g. from 0 to 100), which limit their ease of clinical utility compared to binary scales (i.e. high vs. low). Using HRQoL measures collected from the phase 3 study GOYA, we aim to convert these measures into binary scales by identifying optimal cutoffs and demonstrate their clinical utility in differentiating patient risks in DLBCL. Methods: HRQoL data from the physical functioning (PF2), global health status (QL2), and fatigue (FA) scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and the lymphoma subscale (LYMS) from the FACT-LYM questionnaire were used in this analysis. The optimal cutoff points were identified using statistical metrics that evaluate the prognostic value and goodness-of-fit for each assessed cutoff point. The top performing binary HRQoL scale was further assessed in its clinical utility as an addition to the Internal Prognostic Index (IPI), a standard risk classification tool in DLBCL based on 5 binary measures of patient baseline characteristics, to evaluate whether adding the HRQoL scale would potentially improve the risk classification. Results: As shown in the table, while all binary scales can clearly differentiate patient overall survival (demonstrated by the hazard ratios), PF2 numerically exhibited the best performance, and was further assessed as an addition to IPI. After adding PF2 to the base OS model containing only IPI, we observed improvements in model performance metrics, including the concordance index and the goodness-of-fit. In addition, among patients classified as high risk by IPI (n = 185, 3-yr OS: 65% [95% CI 68-72%]), those with low HRQoL (n = 102, 3-yr OS: 56% [95% CI 47-67%]) had a substantially worse OS, suggesting that further refinement of patient-risk defined by IPI may be feasible with HRQoL measures. Conclusions: Our work highlights the potential of the binary HRQoL scales to provide additional prognostic value to IPI, and suggests that patient reported outcomes may be useful in further refining patient risk classification in addition to IPI in untreated DLBCL. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".