MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114673372 · doi:10.3810/hp.2010.06.306

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Oncology: Promises, Pitfalls, and Practicalities

2010· article· en· W2114673372 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Horgan, Jennifer J. Knox, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueHospital Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeriatric oncologyIntensive care medicineCancerClinical PracticeClinical OncologyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer commonly occurs in elderly patients. Treatment of cancer in this population is complex as the physiologic changes of aging impact treatment decisions, tolerance, and outcomes. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an objective means of assessing the global health of older patients, and evidence suggesting its promise as an aid to both decision making and outcome prediction in the oncology setting is growing. This article describes key studies that highlight the merits and limitations of the CGA for the evaluation of older patients with cancer. We also discuss the practical problems of its application, which may ultimately define the feasibility of its adoption into routine clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHospital PracticeSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207