MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hospitalizations in elderly glioblastoma patients.

2017· article· en· W2890922887 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Moroney, James Perry, Derek S. Tsang, Denise Bilodeau, Christina Mueller, Hany Soliman, Sten Myrehaug, Arjun Sahgal, Chia‐Lin Tseng, May Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentEmergency medicineAmbulatoryCohortAcute careAmbulatory careObservational studyHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21529 Background: Elderly glioblastoma (GB) patients are at risk of hospitalizations due to the morbidity of the disease and possible treatment toxicity. Methods: In this observational cohort study, 255 newly diagnosed GB patients age 65 years and older were included. Survival, emergency room visits and admissions to an acute care hospital were determined. Mean and median total health care costs were calculated. Risk factors for Emergency room visits and acute care hospital admissions were determined. Results: Median overall survival was 6 months. The majority of patients (68%) had at least one visit to the emergency department and 77% had at least one admission to acute care. The mean and median length of hospital stay per patient was 20.5 days and 14 days respectively. Forty-three percent of patients spent 0-4% of their survival as an inpatient. Only 3% spent 70% or more of their survival as an acute care inpatient. There was a mean of 79.7 days and a median of 43 days from the last emergency department visit to death. The mean and median total costs (hospital, ambulatory, physician billing, other health care costs) per patient were $162 479.78 (CAN) and $125 511.00 (CAN), respectively. Treatment with radiation or treatment with radio-chemotherapy was associated with a relative risk (RR) of 2.31 (95% CI 1.44, 3.7; p = 0.0005) and 2.19 (95% CI 1.28, 3.74; p = 0.0 04), respectively for emergency department visits as compared to patients who were managed with comfort measures only. Patients with a baseline ECOG 0 had a RR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.06, 2.77; p = 0.0289) and patients with baseline ECOG 1 had a RR of 1.49 (0.98, 2.26; p = 0.0623) for hospital admission as compared to patients with ECOG 4. Conclusions: A large proportion of elderly GB patients (particularly those with good baseline performance status who underwent active treatment) presented to the emergency department and had at least one admission to acute care.

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.394 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207