MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037583987 · doi:10.1002/cncr.25653

A comparison of charlson and elixhauser comorbidity measures to predict colorectal cancer survival using administrative health data

2010· article· en· W2037583987 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Lieffers, Vickie E. Baracos, Marcy Winget, Konrad Fassbender

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityConcordanceCancerInternal medicineStatisticStage (stratigraphy)Poisson regressionWeight lossColorectal cancerBody mass indexObesityPopulationStatisticsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is related to features of the primary malignancy and concurrent presence of nonmalignant diseases (comorbidities), including weight-related conditions (obesity, weight loss). The Charlson and Elixhauser methods are 2 well-known methods that take comorbidities into account when explaining survival. They differ in both the number and categorization of comorbidities. METHODS: Cancer, comorbidity, and survival data were acquired from inpatient administrative hospital records in 574 colorectal cancer patients. Robust Poisson regression was used to analyze 2- and 3-year survival according to cancer features and comorbidities classified by the Charlson and Elixhauser methods. Data for weight-related conditions (body mass index, weight loss) and performance status were acquired upon a new patient visit to the regional cancer center. Discrimination was assessed with the concordance (c) statistic. RESULTS: A base model (age, sex, stage) had excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.824 [2-year survival] and 0.827 [3-year survival]). The addition of Charlson comorbidities did not outperform the base model (c-statistic, 0.831 [2-year survival] and 0.833 [3-year survival]). Elixhauser comorbidities added higher discrimination compared with the base model, both in stage and overall (c-statistic, 0.852 [2-year survival] and 0.854 [3-year survival]; P < .01). The greatest increase in the c-statistic contributed by the addition of the Elixhauser comorbidities occurred in stage II patients (increased from 0.683 to 0.838). Overall, the Elixhauser comorbidities outperformed the Charlson comorbidities (P < .05). The use of self-reported weight and performance status data significantly increased discrimination by the Elixhauser method in 2-year but not 3-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The Elixhauser method is a superior comorbidity risk-adjustment model for colorectal cancer survival prediction.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations170
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207