Usefulness of frailty markers in the assessment of the health and functional status in older cancer patient referred for chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
19673 Background: In order to properly support clinical decisions, geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended for older cancer patients. However, the best form of GA remained unknown and recent studies demonstrated that usual GA tools may have a ceiling effect in detecting adverse outcomes to cancer treatment. Frailty has emerged as a concept characterizing cumulative declines across multiple physiologic systems, leading to increased vulnerability and risk of adverse outcomes. Consequently, the concept of frailty may represent a more sensitive way to better characterize health and functional status and to detect potential vulnerability to adverse outcomes in older cancer patients. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the usefulness of frailty markers in older cancer patients. Methods: This cross- sectional study included 50 cancer patients, (70 years and older) referred to an oncology clinic for chemotherapy. Chronic diseases, IADL and ADL disabilities, and seven domains considered as frailty markers (nutrition, mobility, strength, energy, physical activities, mood and cognition) were assessed. Patients were classified into hierarchical groups based on the results of their assessment. Results: While 15 (30%) patients had at least one disability in IADL and 8 (16%) patients had at least one disability in ADL, 27 patients (54 %) were completely independent for IADL and ADL. Among those patients with no IADL nor ADL disability, 21 patients (42%) presented at least one frailty marker. In the whole cohort, 44 patients (88%) had at least one frailty markers. The most prevalent of the frailty markers were nutrition, mobility and physical activity (respectively 62%, 58% and 42%). Conclusion: Markers of frailty add substantial information to the usual GA tools in detecting potential vulnerability in older cancer patients. Additional studies are needed to determine if the addition of the frailty markers to the usual GA tools can help to better characterize the older cancer population and predict risk of toxicities and adverse outcomes due to cancer treatment. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".