Prognostic Factors in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Use of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment in Survival Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether elements of a standard nutritional screening assessment are independently prognostic of survival in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective nested cohort of patients with metastatic cancer were accrued from different units of a Regional Palliative Care Program. Patients completed a nutritional screen on admission. Data included age, sex, cancer site, height, weight history, dietary intake, 13 nutrition impact symptoms, and patient- and physician-reported performance status (PS). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were conducted. Concordance statistics (c-statistics) were used to test the predictive accuracy of models based on training and validation sets; a c-statistic of 0.5 indicates the model predicts the outcome as well as chance; perfect prediction has a c-statistic of 1.0. RESULTS: A training set of patients in palliative home care (n = 1,164) was used to identify prognostic variables. Primary disease site, PS, short-term weight change (either gain or loss), dietary intake, and dysphagia predicted survival in multivariate analysis (P < .05). A model including only patients separated by disease site and PS with high c-statistics between predicted and observed responses for survival in the training set (0.90) and validation set (0.88; n = 603). The addition of weight change, dietary intake, and dysphagia did not further improve the c-statistic of the model. The c-statistic was also not altered by substituting physician-rated palliative PS for patient-reported PS. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a high probability of concordance between predicted and observed survival for patients in distinct palliative care settings (home care, tertiary inpatient, ambulatory outpatient) based on patient-reported information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".