MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Use of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) to characterize cachexia in newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients

2009· article· en· W2227724781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antonio Viganò, Barbara Trutschnigg, José A. Morais, Prosanto Chaudhury, Enriqueta Lucar, Peter Metrakos, Mazen Hassanain, Haneen Molla, Laura Hornby, Robert D. Kilgour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineTolerabilityLung cancerHazard ratioCachexiaPerformance statusQuality of life (healthcare)Weight lossAnorexiaPopulationGastroenterologyCancerSurgeryConfidence intervalAdverse effectObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9574 Background: Our objective was to evaluate whether the scored PGSGA questionnaire in advanced cancer patients (ACP) might relate better then weight loss (WL) alone to the nutritional, functional, biological and quality of life features of cachexia (C) and to some complications related to this syndrome. Methods: 214 newly diagnosed ACP with non-small cell lung and gastrointestinal primaries were categorized according to PG-SGA triage intervals of 0–1, 2–8 and ≥9 and also according to WL ≤5% or >5%. Baseline assessments included: hand-grip strenght, body composition by DXA, selective measures of symptom and quality of life (QoL), CBC and differential counts, albumin and CRP. Survival hospitalization rates and data on chemotherapy tolerability were recorded during patient follow-up. Beta coefficients (β), odds ratios (OR), and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated to compare patients with >5% WL to those with ≤5% WL and to compare patients with PGSGA of 0–1 to those with 2–8 and ≥9 scores. All analyses were controlled for gender, age, diagnosis (lung/GI), treatment (radio/chemo), survival (at 8 weeks), and medications. Results: PGSGA was better than the simple recording of WL in defining a population of patients that differed for WBC 109/L(>5% WL β: 0.25 vs. 2–8 PGSGA β: 0.57 and ≥9 PGSGA β: 1.72), CRP mg/L (4.12 vs. 2.16 and 17.49), albumin g/L(-0.63 vs -2.60 and -4.45); weakness 0–10 (1.57 vs.1.56 and 3.32), anorexia 0–10 (2.36 vs. 2.36 and 5.17); Brief Fatigue Inventory 0–90 (17.75 vs. 9.89 and 25.15); McGill QoL 10–0 (-0.95 vs. -0.64 and -2.29); grip strength lbs.(-4.04 vs. -8.82 and -8.06); body fat kg. ( -8.74 vs. -5.94 and -11.72). PGSGA was able to better identify patients with higher rates of both hospitalization (2.6 vs. 1.62 and 9.46) and dose reduction of chemotherapy (1.2 vs. 0.58 and 1.74). Finally, PGSGA was able to better characterize patient survival as compared to WL alone (>5% WL HR: 1.85; 2–8 PGSGA HR: 1.6 and ≥9 PGSGA HR 3.35). Conversely, WL alone was associated with higher probability of a sarcopenia diagnosis by DXA (>5% WL OR: 1.56)Conclusions: Our data support the use of the PGSGA versus the simple recording of WL for identifying C, monitoring its clinical course and predicting possible complications of this syndrome in ACP. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→