MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Correlations of patient-reported measures (PRM) for health, quality of life (QOL), functional status, and social supports with survival in early-stage colon cancer.

2013· article· en· W3011997600 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Chen, Tina Hsu, Hagen F. Kennecke, Anky Lai, Leo Chen, Caroline Speers, Ryan Woods, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Stage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineCancerCohortOncologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9577 Background: PRM can enhance our understanding of patients’ needs and facilitate cancer treatment decision making. Few studies have explored the relationships between brief PRM and outcomes in early stage colon cancer. Our aims were 1) to determine the effects of prospectively collected PRM on cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) and 2) to examine if this association is modified in the elderly. Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage 1 to 3 colon cancer in 2008, evaluated at 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia, and provided baseline PRM were included. PRM consisting of a series of short, self-administered scales that described patient-reported health, QOL, functional status and social supports were collected at baseline and correlated with CSS and OS using regression models that controlled for known prognostic factors such as tumor and nodal stage. We subsequently assessed for effect modification by age, stratifying the cohort into younger (YP; <70 years) and elderly patients (EP; >/=70 years). Results: In total, 223 patients were included: 94 (42%) were EP, 111 (49%) were women, and 152 (68%) were white. Compared to YP, EP were more frequently widowed (27 vs 9%, p=0.0005) and reported having children (92 vs 81%, p=0.03), but they were less likely to receive chemotherapy (57 vs 90%, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in PRM based on age, with the majority indicating they had regular contact with family and friends (92%) and many describing good overall health, QOL, and functional status (48, 61, and 69%, respectively). However, a significant proportion wished for more emotional support (54%). In regression models, self-reported poor functional status was associated with worse OS (HR 2.69, 95%CI 1.09-6.65), but not CSS (HR 1.74, 95%CI 0.61-4.94). This did not differ significantly between YP and EP (p interaction >0.05). No other PRM correlated with OS or CSS (all p>0.05). Conclusions: For early stage colon cancer, self-reported functional status was independently associated with OS. Additional PRM failed to enhance prognostication, suggesting that more comprehensive tools may be required to improve patient assessments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→