Clinical Characteristics of Cancer Patients Referred Early to Supportive and Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative care is evolving from end-of-life care to care provided earlier in the disease trajectory. We compared clinical characteristics between patients referred late in the course of their disease (late referrals, LRs) with patients referred earlier (early referrals, ERs). METHOD: Six hundred and ninety-five patients referred to the Supportive Care Center (SCC) with follow-up within 30 days were enrolled. One hundred ERs (expected survival ≥ 2 years or receiving treatment for curative intent, 14.4%) were compared with a random sample of 100/595 consecutive LRs (all others). RESULTS: ERs were younger (54.4 versus 59.5, p=0.009), more likely to have head and neck cancer (67% versus 6%, p<0.0001), alcoholism (15% versus 4%, p=0.014), and shorter disease duration until first palliative care consultation (3.8 months versus 16.2 months, p<0.0001). They were also more likely to be referred by radiation oncologists (49% versus 3%, p<0.0001), be referred for treatment-related side effects (70% versus 9%, p<0.0001), and receive more anticancer treatment (74% versus 48%, p=0.0002). Head and neck cancer and reason for referral were independent predictors for ERs (p<0.0001) in multivariate analysis. Baseline Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) symptoms were similar between ERs and LRs. Both groups exhibited improved ESAS scores at follow-up; LRs experienced greater improvement in the symptom distress score (-5.5 versus -3, p=0.007). The median total number of medical visits was higher in ERs (p<0.001); however, the median number of visits per month was higher in LRs (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ERs had different patient characteristics than LRs, and although ERs experience distress similar to that of LRs, their needs and outcomes differ.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".