Defining an abnormal geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer: Which deficits matter most?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
12039 Background: At present, there is no universal, objective, and evidence-based definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology (GO). In the literature, a threshold number of abnormal GA domains (ranging from 1-4) is often used to define an abnormal GA. However, it is not well-established whether having a specific number of abnormal domains more frequently leads to treatment plan modification (TPM), a key goal of GA, or if particular domains have a greater impact on TPM. The primary objectives of this study are: (1) to determine how well the current definitions of an abnormal GA predict TPM following GA, and (2) to identify particular GA domains associated with TPM. Methods: A retrospective review of the GO clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre was conducted. All new patients seen in clinic from May 22, 2015 to June 10, 2022 who met the following criteria were included: (1) referred for treatment decision making, (2) received a complete GA, and (3) had a proposed oncologic treatment plan. Demographic, oncologic, and GA-domain variables were extracted. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling was conducted using SPSS to determine each variable’s association with TPM; age, sex, frailty (VES-13) score, and treatment intent were included in all multivariate models. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each model. Results: The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years (61-100), 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability. In univariate analysis, age, VES-13 score, disease stage, treatment intent, all GA domains (except Medication Optimization and Social Supports), and all threshold numbers of abnormal domains (except 1 and 7) were significantly associated (p-value < 0.050) with TPM. The best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains in univariate analysis was 4 (AUC 0.628). Overall, the best-performing multivariate model based on AUC was the model containing all 6 significant GA domains (AUC 0.710). In this model, age, treatment intent, Comorbidities, Falls Risk, and Cognition were independently associated with TPM (p-value < 0.05). The multivariate model with a threshold of 4 abnormal domains alone had an AUC of 0.689 and age, VES-13 score, treatment intent, and the threshold were independently associated with TPM. Of the models which included a single GA domain plus the threshold, the models with Comorbidities and Cognition performed best, having AUCs of 0.699 and 0.700, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that an abnormal GA (leading to TPM) may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of Comorbidities, Falls Risk, and Cognition. In terms of a strictly numerical threshold, a GA may be best defined as abnormal if at least 4 GA domains are abnormal. When at least 4 GA domains are abnormal, abnormalities in Comorbidities and Cognition appear to best predict TPM.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».