Patterns of care and treatment outcomes in older patients with biliary tract cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
315 Background: Although cancers of the biliary tree (BTC) are more common in older age-groups, treatment approaches and outcomes are understudied in this population. Methods: Data from 913 patients diagnosed with BTC from January 1987 to July 2013 and treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto were analyzed. The impact of age, patient and disease characteristics on survival outcomes were assessed. Results: Five hundred and ninety four patients ≤70 years and 319 patients >70 years were identified. Older patients were less likely to receive active therapy - 154 (26%) patients ≤70 yrs received best supportive care alone compared to 130 (41%) of those >70 yrs; p<0.0001. The characteristics of those receiving active therapy (surgery +/- chemotherapy) are shown (table). For patients receiving active treatment, ECOG PS (p=0.002) and disease stage (p<0.0001) independently predicted overall survival. Adjusting for these variables, median survival did not differ between older and younger patients, median survival 20.1 (95% CI [17.8, 23.3]) and 20.5 (95% CI [18.7, 23]) months respectively; HR 1.064 (95% CI [0.86, 1.32]). Conclusions: In this large retrospective analysis, older patients with BTC are less likely to undergo surgery or chemotherapy. Active therapy results in similar survival benefits, irrespective of age. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".