MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573810422 · doi:10.1002/cncr.30511

The utility of abbreviated patient‐reported outcomes for predicting survival in early stage colorectal cancer

2017· article· en· W2573810422 on OpenAlexaff
Tina Hsu, Caroline Speers, Hagen F. Kennecke, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerPsychosocialHazard ratioInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)CancerProportional hazards modelStage (stratigraphy)AnxietyDiseaseOncologyLung cancerBreast cancerConfidence intervalPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical settings. Prior research suggests that PROs collected at baseline may be associated with cancer survival, but most of those studies were conducted in patients with breast or lung cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the correlation between prospectively collected PROs and cancer-specific outcomes in patients with early stage colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who had newly diagnosed stage II or III colorectal cancer from 2009 to 2010 and had a consultation at the British Columbia Cancer Agency completed the brief Psychosocial Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) questionnaire, which collects data on patients' perceived social supports, quality of life (QOL), anxiety and depression, and general health. PROs from the PSSCAN were linked with the Gastrointestinal Cancers Outcomes Database, which contains information on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment details, and cancer outcomes. Cox regression models were constructed for overall survival (OS), and Fine and Gray regression models were developed for disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: In total, 692 patients were included. The median patient age was 67 years (range, 26-95 years), and the majority had colon cancer (61%), were diagnosed with stage III disease (54%), and received chemotherapy (58%). In general, patients felt well supported and reported good overall health and QOL. On multivariate analysis, increased fatigue was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; P = .00007) and DSS (HR, 1.63; P = .03), as was lack of emotional support (OS: HR, 4.36; P = .0003; DSS: HR, 1.92; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients described good overall health and QOL and indicated that they were generally well supported, patients who experienced more pronounced fatigue or lacked emotional support had a higher likelihood of worse OS and DSS. These findings suggest that abbreviated PROs can inform and assist clinicians to identify patients who have a worse prognosis and may need more vigilant follow-up. Cancer 2017;123:1839-1847. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207