MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does screening for frailty with the vulnerable elders survey (VES-13) identify older adults with GU malignancy who benefit most from a consultation in a geriatric oncology clinic?

2020· article· en· W3007285443 on OpenAlexaffabout
Naser Alqurini, Narhari Timilshina, Rana Jin, Allison Loucks, Arielle Berger, Lindy Romanovsky, Martine Puts, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeriatric oncologyInternal medicineComorbidityUnivariate analysisMalignancyOdds ratioCancerPolypharmacyGeriatricsMultivariate analysisPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

209 Background: The VES-13 is a well-studied brief frailty screening tool for ≥ 65 older adults (OAs) in the oncology setting. Vulnerable patients (scoring ≥ 3) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes and will benefit from a Comprehensive Geriatric assessment (CGA) and cancer treatment decision optimization. Whether the VES-13 is effective specifically in patients with Genitourinary (GU) malignancies remains to be established. Primary objective: to determine if the VES-13 can predict which OAs with GU cancer (Bladder, Prostate, Kidney) had subsequent treatment modification after CGA. Secondary objective: to investigate if there is any association between VES-13 score with comorbidity and chemotherapy toxicity prediction tool (CARG). Methods: The VES-13 was administered to consecutive patients referred to the geriatric oncology (GO) clinic from GU site at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada. All patients underwent CGA. CGA assess 8 domains including cognition, comorbidities, function, falls risk. Among patients referred for pre-treatment assessment, we examined whether the VES-13 predicted changes in the final treatment plan after CGA. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the VES-13 scores and final treatment impact. Results: From July 2015-October 2019, 77 were included in this analysis. The VES-13 ≥ 3 group were 52/77 (67.5%), and significantly associated with higher comorbidities (P = 0.003) and worse CARG scores (P = 0.005). The final treatment plan was modified in 36/77 (47%). In univariate analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for VES-13 ≥3 was 1.92 (95% CI 0.72-5.12) for change in final treatment, which was not statistically significant likely due to modest sample size. Interestingly in the same univariate analysis, there was a strong association between final treatment plan with falls risk (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.03-6.72), physical performance (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.98-6.45) and cognition (OR 3.95, 95% CI 1.19-13.19). Conclusions: The VES-13 identified vulnerable GU patients who will benefit from CGA and may predict treatment optimization by identifying patients at higher risk of chemotherapy toxicity and higher comorbidity.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→