Correlation of Palliative Performance Scale and Survival in Patients With Cancer Receiving Home-Based Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to examine whether and how the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), a measure of a patient's function, was predictive of survival time for those in receipt of home-based palliative care. This was a prospective study, which included 194 cancer patients from November 17, 2013, to August 18, 2015. Data were collected from biweekly telephone interviews with caregivers. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were estimated to assess how survival time was correlated with initial PPS scores after admission to the home-based palliative care program. A multivariate extended Cox regression model was used to examine the association between PPS and survival. The results showed that patients with higher PPS scores, that is, better function, had a lower hazard ratio (0.977; 95% confidence interval: 0.965-0.989) and hence longer survival times. The PPS can be used in predicting survival time for home-based palliative care patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".