Clinical prediction survival of advanced cancer patients by palliative care: a multi-site study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study examined (1) accuracy of clinician prediction of survival (CPS) by palliative practitioners on first assessment with the use of standardised palliative tools, (2) factors affecting accuracy, (3) potential impact on clinical care. METHODS: A multi-site prospective study (n=1530) was used. CPS was divided into four time periods (<=2wks, >2 to 6wks, >6 to 12wks and >12wks). Multivariate analysis was assessed on six predictor variables. RESULTS: Overall, median survival of the sample was only 5 weeks. CPS category was accurate only 38.6% of the time, with 44.6% patients dying before the predicted time period. Of six candidate variables, on multivariate analysis only (i) the clinical time periods themselves and (ii) Palliative Performance Scale <=50 predicted for prognostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: CPS, even by palliative practitioners, remains overly optimistic with the existence of the horizon effect. This raises the question in that these individuals may have been potentially overtreated.
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 | 0.000 | 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".