Survival Implications of Sudden Functional Decline as a Sentinel Event Using the Palliative Performance Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This retrospective study analyzed sudden functional decline using the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) for patients recently admitted to a palliative care unit (PCU) to determine if this adversely affects survival. There were 3328 patients in the cohort over a 13-year period admitted to a tertiary palliative care bed (71.1%) or a residential hospice bed (28.9%). Patient age ranged from 17-102 years old with 51.9% female and 48.1% male; the majority (88.3%) had a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Given several limitations noted in the study, six preliminary findings emerged: (1) The lower the initial PPS at PCU admission, the higher the likelihood of an abrupt drop occurring shortly after admission; (2) An abrupt decline in function appears to be associated with smaller survival probabilities; (3) A greater increment change in PPS may be associated with shorter survival probabilities; (4) The lower the PPS on admission, the shorter the survival; (5) When dropping a specific increment amount, the new survival projection appears similar to the PPS level dropped to; and (6) Sudden or abrupt functional decline may be a sentinel event. CONCLUSIONS: The data provide evidence that abrupt functional decline implies the likelihood of shorter survival in palliative care patients and may act as a sentinel marker. It is unclear whether these findings would be generalizable outside of a PCU. These results should be interpreted with caution as a prospective evaluation is needed to confirm the results. If substantiated, it may be that incorporating sudden functional decline into palliative prognostic models may increase their predictive accuracy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".