Impact of intensive chemotherapy versus supportive care on quality of life (QOL) of older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8187 Background: Older patients with AML often have a poor prognosis and often do not tolerate intensive chemotherapy. When weighing alternate management strategies (e.g. best supportive care), impact upon QOL should be evaluated. However, there is limited published research in this area. Methods: Patients aged 60 or older presenting with newly diagnosed AML to an AML referral centre were enrolled regardless of treatment intent. Patients were excluded if life expectancy was under 1 month or they did not speak English. QOL was measured at baseline and at 1, 4, and 6 months. Questionnaires included the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (global health, 5 QOL domains, 3 symptom domains) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue subscale. Patients were stratified by intensive versus non-intensive treatment. Results: From June 2003 to July 2004, 28 patients (mean age 72) were enrolled. At baseline, global health, role function, and social function were the most affected domains. Fatigue was the predominant symptom. Among patients treated intensively, global health, role function, and social function improved over time. Other domains were unchanged. Non-intensively managed patients had smaller improvements in global health and improved role function and cognitive function. Social function declined and other domains remained stable. Fatigue scores improved minimally over time in both groups, and were unaffected by remission status. Pain scores were low at baseline but worsened slightly over time in both groups. Conclusion: QOL in older patients appears to be significantly affected by AML. Intensive chemotherapy is associated with greater improvement or less decline in several domains of QOL but little improvement in fatigue. These results can inform decision-making for older adults with AML and suggest the need for better symptom management. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".