Predictive Model for Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To derive and validate a simple predictive model for survival of patients with metastatic cancer attending a palliative radiotherapy clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We described previously a model predicting survival of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy using six prognostic factors: primary cancer site, site of metastases, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), and the fatigue, appetite, and shortness of breath subscales from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Here we simplified the model to include only three factors: primary cancer site, site of metastases, and KPS. Each factor was assigned a value proportional to its prognostic weight, and the weighted scores for each patient were summed to obtain a survival prediction score (SPS). Patients were also grouped according to their number of risk factors (NRF): nonbreast cancer, metastases other than bone, and KPS < or = 60. The three- and six- variable models were evaluated for their ability to predict survival in patients referred during a different time period and of those referred to a different cancer center. RESULTS: A training set of 395 patients, a temporal validation set of 445 patients, and an external validation set of 467 patients were used. The ability of the three- and six-variable models to separate patients into three prognostic groups and to predict their survival was similar using both SPS and NRF methods in the training, temporal, and external validation data sets. There was no statistically significant difference in the performance of the models. CONCLUSION: The three-variable NRF model is preferred because of its relative simplicity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".