MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rapid assessment of frailty prior to treatment of elderly colorectal cancer patients.

2013· article· en· W2613862004 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sukhbinder Dhesy‐Thind, Brandon M. Meyers, Humaid O. Al‐Shamsi, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου, Kevin Zbuk, Gregory R. Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancerMultivariate analysisChemotherapyCancerPopulationOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20522 Background: Frailty is traditionally assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA); there is no agreed upon standard for a CGA, and it is not feasible to implement in routine oncology practice. In contrast, the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) is a simple questionnaire, requiring less than 5 minutes to complete, initially validated as a surrogate to the CGA in general medicine patients (Rolfson et al, 2006). We conducted a pilot study to establish if the EFS would add utility beyond clinician’s expertise. Methods: The EFS was administered to stage II-IV CRC patients ≥70 years, referred to a Medical Oncologist at a tertiary care centre. The EFS was completed by one of the investigators, with the treating oncology team blinded to results, and follow up of 14 months. Results: Forty-six patients were enrolled with the following characteristics: average age 76, 48% male, and 78% Zubrod performance status (PS) 0-1. The EFS was reproducible between visits (r = 0.81 [95%CI 0.64-0.9], p<0.01). No association existed for the EFS and receipt of chemotherapy for the study population as a whole, however none of the stage II patients had features requiring chemotherapy. Restricting the analysis to stage III/IV patients demonstrated a reduced likelihood of receiving chemotherapy with higher EFS scores (Odds ratio 0.56 per unit increment [95%CI 0.37-0.85] p<0.01). A similar effect was observed after multivariate analysis (adjusting for PS, age, stage and gender, Odds ratio 0.41 per unit increment [95%CI 0.18-0.96] p<0.05). The clinician’s qualitative impression was associated with the EFS (p<0.01). No association existed between the EFS and upfront dose reductions, choice of less toxic regimens, or hospitalization secondary to grade 3/4 toxicities. Conclusions: The EFS can identify patients that Oncologists may have thought were too frail for chemotherapy, independent of PS. The EFS has the potential to add a reproducible, and quantifiable measure of frailty to aid in decision making in oncology practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→