MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patterns of futile care for comorbidities in colorectal cancer patients near the end of life.

2017· article· en· W2891759897 on OpenAlexaff
Davis Sam, Richard M. Lee‐Ying, Sally C. M. Lau, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of CalgaryBaker Hughes (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerCancerEnd-of-life careInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyMedical prescriptionPopulationCohortCause of deathPsychological interventionPalliative careIntensive care medicineDiseaseEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18242 Background: Futile care includes interventions that no longer provide benefit, may cause significant harm, and/or lack sufficient utility to justify the required resources. Cancer care such as chemotherapy use has been shown to be overly aggressive near the end of life. We hypothesized that futile care for non-cancer comorbidities in terminal colorectal cancer (CRC) patients may also be prevalent and associated with specific clinical factors. Methods: We constructed a large retrospective cohort of decedents aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with CRC during 2008-2012 and who died by the end of 2013. We analyzed population-based data through linked provincial files with information on cancer management, pharmacy records, hospital discharges, and vital statistics. We defined endpoints for futile care as ≥1 hospitalization and/or ≥1 prescription for statins, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs), or acid suppressants within 2 months preceding death. Different time points were used in sensitivity analyses. Results: We included 2,530 patients. Median age at CRC diagnosis and death was 70 (IQR 61-79) and 72 (IQR 62-80) years, respectively. Among them, 59% were men, 66% had colon cancer, and 87% were diagnosed with advance disease. Median time from diagnosis to death was 452 (IQR 201-800) days. In terms of futile care, 4.7% had hospitalizations, 8.7% received statins, 6.8% received CCBs, and 38.2% received acid suppressants within 2 months prior to death. In multivariate analyses, there were no clear associations between demographics and hospitalizations. With respect to medication use, advanced age was correlated with increased use of statins (OR 2.235, 95%CI 1.469-3.401, p < 0.001) and CCBs (OR 2.039, 95%CI 1.304-3.190, p = 0.002), but inversely associated with use of acid suppressants (OR 0.750, 95%CI 0.598-0.941, p = 0.013). Men were also more likely to receive statins (OR 1.653, 1.099-2.488, p = 0.016), but less likely to receive acid suppressants (OR 0.764, 0.608-0.960, p = 0.021). Conclusions: Even near death, a fair number of decedents with CRC continued to receive medications for comorbidities that were unlikely to provide clinically meaningful benefits. Futile care was more prevalent in men and in the elderly.

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)0.007
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 Oncology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→