Length of Survival of Patients with Cancer in Hospice: A Retrospective Analysis of Patients Treated at a Major Cancer Center Versus Other Practice Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a retrospective study of the length of survival (LOS) in hospice of patients with cancer treated at a major cancer center compared to other treatment sites. Of 670 patients, the 185 (28%) treated at a major cancer center had unique characteristics, including higher median Palliative Performance Score (PPS) at the time of hospice enrollment (45 versus 40, p = 0.009), and longer median LOS in hospice (35 versus 21 days, p = 0.02: log rank test). Additional variables that predicted longer LOS were higher PPS, Medicare or Medicaid, self-referral, unmarried status, and non-executed advance directives. After adjusting survival for PPS with a Cox proportional hazard model, the hazard ratio for PPS remained statistically significant (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.97] while that for the treatment site was not (95% CI: 0.73-1.04]. The performance status, and not the treatment site, was the dominant predictor of the LOS of patients with cancer in hospice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".