Conversion of Karnofsky Performance Status (Kps) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (Ecog) to Palliative Performance Scale (Pps), and the interchangeability of Pps and Kps in Prognostic Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of our study was to assess whether the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) are interchangeable individually or within two prognostic tools: the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) and the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). METHODS: We performed a subset analysis of a prospective comparative study of functional and prognostic tools and clinician prediction of survival. We studied 955 patients with advanced life-limiting illnesses (cancer and noncancer) in the acute care and community settings. We used a descriptive statistical model and Spearman's rank correlation to assess these interchangeabilities. RESULTS: There is a direct positive linear relationship between the KPS and the PPS, and a direct negative linear relationship between these tools and the ECOG. Exchange of the KPS and the PPS was possible within the PaP and the PPI. CONCLUSION: The PPS and the KPS can be used interchangeably as functional tools and within prognostic tools. The ECOG is interchangeable with the PPS and the KPS, but this interchangeability is population-specific.
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 | 0.021 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".