The Quality of Life after Endometrial Cancer Study: Baseline Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometrial cancer (EC) patients make up the second largest group of female cancer survivors. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QOL) and sexual function and satisfaction (SF and S) are critical facets of survivorship. This prospective, longitudinal study assesses associations between baseline characteristics and PROs after treatment. Herein, we report the baseline clinical characteristics and PROs prior to treatment initiation. Outcomes post-treatment over time will be reported separately. Patients with planned surgery for EC were prospectively enrolled in 2019–2021 and administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ EC Module (EN24), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and the Mayo Clinic lower extremity lymphedema (LEL) questionnaire. This study enrolled 198 patients with a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (9.8) years and body mass index of 35.5 (8.3) kg/m2. No significant differences in the PROs for the QOL were seen when compared to the reference means (SD) except for the lower interest in sexual activity (31.9 (9.8) vs. 47.5 (SE0.70)) and lower fatigue (21.3 (19.8) vs. 31.7 (25.9)). Increased obesity was associated with an increased likelihood of LEL (p < 0.01) and multiple QOL scales, including poorer global health status (p < 0.01) and physical functioning (p < 0.01). Prior to treatment initiation for EC, the patients had a similar QOL compared to that of the general population. The patients with increasing obesity, a known risk factor for EC, had worse overall global health status and physical functioning. A better understanding of these QOL measures is imperative for earlier identification and intervention of patients at risk of chronic impairments from EC treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".