Assessing Quality of Life of Patients with Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the limitations of existing health-related quality-of-life (QOL) measures in capturing the end-of-life experience of patients with advanced chronic diseases, an empirically grounded instrument, the quality-of-life concerns in the end of life questionnaire (QOLC-E), was developed. Though it was built on the McGill quality of life questionnaire (MQOL), its sphere is more holistic and culturally specific for the Chinese patients in Hong Kong. One hundred and forty-nine patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or metastatic cancer completed the questionnaire. Seven factors (28 items) which emerged from the factor analysis were grouped into four positive (support, value of life, food-related concerns, and healthcare concerns) and four negative (physical discomfort, negative emotions, sense of alienation, and existential distress) subscales. Good internal consistency and concurrent validity were shown. The results also revealed that these two groups of patients had similar QOL concerns. The validity of applying QOLC-E as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative and psychoexistential interventions has yet to be tested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".