A Practical Guide to Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults With Cancer: A Focus on Falls, Cognition, Polypharmacy, and Depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geriatric syndromes are multifactorial conditions that are prevalent in older adults. Geriatric syndromes are believed to develop when an individual experiences accumulated impairments in multiple systems that compromise their compensatory ability. In older adults with cancer, the presence of a geriatric syndrome is common and may increase the complexity of cancer treatment. In addition, the physiologic stress of cancer and cancer treatment may precipitate or exacerbate geriatric syndromes. Common geriatric syndromes include falls, cognitive syndromes and delirium, depression, and polypharmacy. In the oncology setting, the presence of geriatric syndromes is relevant; falls and cognitive problems have been shown to be predictive of chemotherapy toxicity and overall survival. Polypharmacy and depression are more common in older adults with cancer compared with the general geriatric population. Multiple screening tools exist to identify falls, cognitive problems, polypharmacy, and depression in older adults and can be applied to the oncology setting to identify patients at risk. When recognized, several interventions exist that could be considered for this vulnerable population. We review the available evidence of four geriatric syndromes in the oncology setting, including clinical implications, validated screening tools, potential supportive care, and therapeutic interventions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it