Validation of the Edmonton‐33: A Patient‐Reported Outcome Instrument in Head and Neck Oncology at Baseline and Subacute Phases Post‐Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO), which prioritize patient perspectives, are highly valuable for patient-centered care in Head and Neck Oncology. The objective of this study was to explore the longitudinal validity of the Edmonton-33 (E-33), a PRO instrument for assessing head and neck functions in swallowing, chewing, dry mouth, and speech. METHODS: This study involved 59 adult patients (18 female, 41 male) with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity. Participants provided consent and completed the E-33 and other PRO instruments before and after surgical and radiation treatment at months 3 (n = 18), 6 (n = 18), and 9 (n = 16). Data were collected (from June 2021 to August 2024) and analyzed for correlation between domains of the E-33 and their domain-specific, previously validated counterparts before treatment (baseline) and after treatment (Months 3, 6, and 9). RESULTS: There were statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) between all E-33 domains and their domain-specific counterparts at baseline and at post-treatment month 6. At Months 3 and 9 post-treatment, there were partial correlations between E-33 domains and some domain-specific counterparts. CONCLUSION: The E-33 demonstrates validity pre-treatment and post-treatment at subacute timepoint (Months 6) for capturing data on swallowing, chewing, dry mouth, and speech, similar to other previously validated instruments. This validity is limited at the more acute timepoint of 3 months post-treatment and the later timepoint of 9 months post-treatment. Additional data are needed to further explore the long-term validity at further longitudinal timepoints at 1 and 2 years post-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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".