The Association of the Palliative Performance Scale and Hazard of Death in an Ambulatory Cancer Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported survival estimates in palliative populations using the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) (where 100=best status, 0=death). However, little research has examined the association of the PPS with hazard of death in ambulatory populations. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between performance status and the instantaneous hazard of death in ambulatory cancer patients, using longitudinal PPS scores. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study included cancer outpatients who had at least one PPS assessment completed between 2007 and 2009. PPS scores were recorded opportunistically by health care providers at clinic or home care visits. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to determine the relative hazard of death based on repeated measures of PPS score, while controlling for other covariates. RESULTS: Among 11,342 qualifying cancer patients, there were 54,207 PPS assessments. The distribution of PPS scores at first assessment were 23%, 56%, 20%, and 1% for PPS scores of 100, 90-70, 60-40, and ≤ 30, respectively. A quarter of the cohort died within 6 months of the first assessment. The relative hazard of death increases by a factor of 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72-1.67) for each 10-point decrease in PPS score. Thus the hazard of death increases by 8.2 (1.69(4)) times for a person with PPS score of 30 compared with a person with a score of 70. CONCLUSION: The PPS was significantly associated with hazard of death in ambulatory cancer patients; the relative hazard of death increased based on lowered PPS scores. Providers should consider broadening its use to include patients throughout their disease trajectory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".