365. A SCOPING REVIEW OF THE MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES SPECIFIC TO ESOPHAGEAL CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMsare essential for evaluating quality of life and treatment outcomes in esophageal cancer. However, the psychometric quality of esophageal cancer-specific PROMshas not been systematically assessed. This study aimed to review the extent to which these PROMsmeet the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to inform their suitability for clinical and research applications. Methods A scoping review was conducted following Cochrane Rapid Review Methods. A systematic search of MedLine, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and COMET databases was developed with a medical librarian. Studies reporting on the psychometric properties of PROMsdesigned for esophageal cancer were included. Generic cancer PROMsand those for other conditions (e.g., pain, depression, etc.) were excluded. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction using Covidence, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Results The search yielded 5698 studies, 10 of which were duplicates. The remaining 5688 underwent title and abstract screening. After excluding 5624 irrelevant studies, 64 studies that underwent full-text review, of which 32 were included for data extracting. Preliminary results observed 14 unique PROMs The remaining studies were either translations (n = 9) or refinements (e.g., item reduction or subscale development) (n = 9) of one of the unique PROMs While all studies included validation assessments, psychometric quality varied. Reliability and responsiveness were less frequently reported. Conclusion As PROMsbecome increasingly integrated into esophageal cancer care, their psychometric rigor must be ensured. Many older PROMspredate the COSMIN guidelines and may require re-evaluation to align with modern validation standards. Establishing a standardized, high-quality set of PROMswill improve multi-site collaboration, enhance patient-centered research, and support clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.067 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".