MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does expected survival influence palliative radiotherapy treatment recommendations?

2015· article· en· W2590305498 on OpenAlexaff
Leonor David, Brock Debenham, Bronwen LeGuerrier, Kim Paulson, Sunita Ghosh, Fleur Huang, Karen Chu, Diane Severin, John Amanie, Tirath Nijjar, Samir Patel, Jim Rose, Ericka Wiebe, Brita Danielson, Alysa Fairchild

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careQuality of life (healthcare)Life expectancyRadiation therapyLogistic regressionLung cancerProportional hazards modelPerformance statusMultivariate analysisInternal medicineCancerSurvival analysisPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

35 Background: Survival is often overestimated, yet physicians rely on such predictions to recommend appropriate therapy and assist with end-of-life planning. Administration of radiotherapy (RT) within the last 30 days of life has been suggested as an indicator of poor quality care, since acute side effects reduce quality of life with insufficient time for symptomatic benefit. We investigated whether life expectancy predicted at the time of consultation correlates with palliative RT recommendations. Methods: Radiation oncologists from a dedicated palliative Radiation Oncology outpatient clinic anonymously completed survival estimations after clinical assessment, and recorded factors upon which each estimate was based. Demographics, primary histology, RT details, and date of death were abstracted. Summary statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates of actual survival (AS) were obtained. Correlations between AS and clinical predictions of survival (CPS) were calculated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r). Multivariate logistic regression analysis explored factors associated with RT recommendations. Results: 476 survival predictions were made for 420 unique patients (06/2010-01/2014). Median age was 67.7 years, 61.9% were male and 44.0% had lung cancer. Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was > 70 at 23.9% of clinic visits. At 84.5% of consultations, RT was prescribed to 538 separate volumes (29.2% receiving 8Gy, 54.8% 20Gy, 6.3% 30Gy, 9.7% other). Mean AS was 179 days (SD 187d), moderately correlating with mean CPS of 242 days (SD 261d) with r = 0.38 (p < 0.0001). Factors most frequently cited as influencing CPS were KPS and extent of disease. At the time of 30/476 visits, CPS was < 30 days; at 19 of these visits, RT was prescribed to 26 volumes (21 bone, 3 whole brain, 2 chest), 2/3 as single fractions, finishing a median of 17 days before death. Expected survival was predictive of prescribed RT dose on univariate logistic regression, but did not retain significance on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Despite international surveys in which prognosis has been cited as the main factor affecting treatment decisions, in this cohort, other aspects appear to have more strongly influenced palliative RT recommendations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207