MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The risk of debilitating falls in Manitobans living with prostate cancer (pc).

2013· article· en· W2591394585 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel Roger Gingerich, Pascal Lambert, Malcolm Doupe, Paul Daeninck, Marshall Pitz, Piotr Czaykowski, Alison Bertram-Farough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerHazard ratioCohortIncidence (geometry)PopulationProstate cancerInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyCancer registryPoison controlCumulative incidenceEmergency medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

244 Background: Falls and fall-related injuries are important patient safety problems. Some studies suggest that pc patients have higher fall rates, however the severity of these falls is unknown. We sought to measure if pc patients are at increased risk of a debilitating fall requiring hospitalization. Methods: This is a retrospective population-based study utilizing the Manitoba Cancer Registry and Manitoba Health administrative databases. Our cohort consists of all community-dwelling patients living in Manitoba Canada who were diagnosed with pc between 2004 and 2008. These individuals were matched by age, sex, and time of diagnosis with up to three cancer-free controls. Debilitating falls were defined as falls/fractures requiring hospitalization and were identified using ICD-9 and -10 billing codes. A competing risk model was used to compare debilitating falls between the pc and cancer-free cohorts and expressed as sub-hazard ratios. Follow-up ended December 31, 2009. Results: 2,903 pc patients were identified along with 8,686 matched controls. The mean age was 69.3 and 68.8 respectively. The median follow-up was 3.05 years. Debilitating falls were identified in 109 patients (3.8%) with pc and 345 (4%) matched controls. The cumulative incidence of debilitating falls for those with pc vs cancer-free controls were: 1.08% vs. 1.13% at 1-year and 5.25% vs. 5.96% at five years of follow-up (SHR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.77 – 1.18, p = 0.65). On univariate analysis, patients with stage IV pc were at higher risk of falls compared to matched controls. This difference was not significant on multivariate analysis though (SHR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.74 – 1.89, p = 0.48). On multivariate analysis, patients with a Gleason score of ≤6 experienced a reduced risk of debilitating falls compared to matched controls (SHR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.27 – 0.72, p = 0.001), whereas patients with other Gleason scores did not. The analysis was similar when patients with fractures were excluded. Conclusions: In this large population-based study, the 1- and 5-year cumulative incidence of debilitating falls did not differ significantly for patients with vs without pc. In fact, compared to matched controls, low grade pc patients were less likely to experience a debilitating fall.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→