MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988308780 · doi:10.1002/cncr.25389

Timing of palliative care referral and symptom burden in phase 1 cancer patients

2010· article· en· W1988308780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Hui, Henrique A. Parsons, Linh Nguyen, Shana L. Palla, Sriram Yennurajalingam, Razelle Kurzrock, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careCancerCohortPerformance statusCohort studyInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 trials offer patients with advanced cancer the opportunity to pursue life-prolonging cancer treatments. In the current study, the timing of referral and symptom burden between patients referred to palliative care by phase 1 oncologists and those referred by non-phase 1 oncologists were compared. METHODS: All 57 patients with advanced solid tumors who were referred by phase 1 oncologists to the palliative care outpatient clinic at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) between 2007 and 2008 were included. The comparison cohort was comprised of 114 non-phase 1 patients who were stratified by age, sex, and cancer diagnosis in a 1:2 ratio. Information regarding patient characteristics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), timing of referral, and survival was retrieved. RESULTS: Both cohorts had the following matched characteristics: average age of 57 years, with 44% of the patients being female and 47% having gastrointestinal cancers. At the time of palliative care consultation, patients referred by phase 1 oncologists were more likely than patients referred by non-phase 1 oncologists to have a better performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1: 61% vs 36% [P = .003). The ESAS was not significantly different with the exception of better well-being in the phase 1 cohort (mean, 4.5 vs 5.5; P = .03). No difference was found for the duration between registration at MDACC and palliative care consultation (13 months vs 11 months; P = .41) and overall survival from the time of palliative care consultation (5 months vs 4 months; P = .69). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients referred to palliative care by phase 1 oncologists were found to have a better performance status but similar symptom burden compared with patients referred by non-phase 1 oncologists. Patients with phase 1 involvement did not appear to have delayed palliative care referral compared with non-phase 1 patients. The results of the current study support the development of a simultaneous care model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207