MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predictive impact of quality of life measurements in chemotherapy treated advanced pancreatic cancer patients at a single Canadian cancer institution.

2016· article· en· W2891655951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina Kim, Quincy S. Chu, Konrad Fassbender, Sunita Ghosh, Jennifer L. Spratlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyInternal medicinePancreatic cancerCancerQuality of life (healthcare)Performance statusCancer registryClinical endpointOncologySurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21650 Background: Despite advancements in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), prognosis remains poor. With short survival despite aggressive chemotherapy regimens, maintaining quality of life (QOL) is paramount. Evidence suggests QOL may be a prognostic and predictive marker for clinical outcomes in poor prognosis cancers; we hypothesize this is the case in APC. Methods: Patients (pts) > 18 years of age with APC diagnosed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010 and treated at a single Canadian institution were identified using the provincial cancer registry. QOL was assessed using a composite endpoint of clinical benefit, defined as an improvement in patient-reported pain, opioid consumption, ECOG performance status and/or weight. Best radiologic response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded. Results: Of 387 pts identified by the provincial cancer registry, 103 were seen in consultation and received chemotherapy. Median age was 64 (range 38-84); 58% were male and 66% had metastatic disease. At baseline, the majority of pts reported pain (80%), opioid use (61%) or weight loss (71%). Thirty five (34%) pts experienced a clinical benefit with chemotherapy, but only 6 (17%) of these pts had a radiologic response. The median PFS and OS were improved in pts who experienced a clinical benefit (6.6 months versus 4.6 months, p= 0.03 and 11.7 months versus 6.1 months, p< 0.0001, respectively). Conclusions: In pts with APC treated with chemotherapy, improvement in QOL as indexed by clinical benefit from chemotherapy, predicted for improved PFS and OS. However, it did not appear to be associated with radiologic response to chemotherapy. As such, we have undertaken a prospective study, using validated QOL assessment tools, to further investigate the prognostic and predictive significance of baseline and subsequent QOL scores in patients with APC receiving palliative chemotherapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→