Do repeated assessments of performance status improve predictions for risk of death among patients with cancer? A population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior work has utilized longitudinal information on performance status to demonstrate its association with risk of death among cancer patients; however, no study has assessed whether such longitudinal information improves the predictions for risk of death. AIM: To examine whether the use of repeated performance status assessments improve predictions for risk of death compared to using only performance status assessment at the time of cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: This was a population-based longitudinal study of adult outpatients who had a cancer diagnosis and had at least one assessment of performance status. To account for each patient's changing performance status over time, we implemented a Cox model with a time-varying covariate for performance status. This model was compared to a Cox model using only a time-fixed (baseline) covariate for performance status. The regression coefficients of each model were derived based on a randomly selected 60% of patients, and then, the predictive ability of each model was assessed via concordance probabilities when applied to the remaining 40% of patients. RESULTS: Our study consisted of 15,487 cancer patients with over 53,000 performance status assessments. The utilization of repeated performance status assessments improved predictions for risk of death compared to using only the performance status assessment taken at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: When studying the hazard of death among patients with cancer, if available, researchers should incorporate changing information on performance status scores, instead of simply baseline information on performance status.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".