MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

External validation of two predictive scores of chemotherapy toxicities among older patients with solid cancer, from ELCAPA prospective cohort.

2020· article· en· W3029721605 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maxime Frélaut, Philippe Caillet, Stéphane Culine, Éléna Paillaud, Christophe Tournigand, Florence Canouï‐Poitrine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCNIB
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineProspective cohort studyCohortCancerChemotherapyQuality of life (healthcare)Cohort studyOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12050 Background: Severe chemotherapy toxicities are frequent among older patients, and may have a major impact on mortality, comorbidities, and quality of life. Two scores were developed to predict severe toxicities: Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-age patients (CRASH) score, and Cancer and Aging Research Group Study (CARG) score. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the predictive value of both scores on an external cohort. Secondary objective was to identify individual predictive factors of severe chemotherapy toxicities. Methods: The Elderly Cancer Patients (ELCAPA) survey consists in a prospective cohort including patients aged 70 years or older referred for a geriatric assessment (GA) before anticancer treatment, such as chemotherapy for solid cancer. CARG and CRASH score were retrospectively collected. Main endpoint was grade 3/4/5 toxicities for CARG-score, hematologic grade 4/5 and non-hematologic grade 3/4/5 toxicities for CRASH-score. Calibration and discrimination (Area Under ROC Curve, AUC) were evaluated. Results: From July 2010 to March 2017, 248 patients were included. Among them, 150 (61%) experienced severe toxicity as defined in CARG study, and 126 (51%) as defined in CRASH study. There was no increased risk of toxicity in intermediate and high risk groups of CARG-score compared to low risk group (OR = 0.3, IC95% [0.1 – 1.4], p= 0.1; and OR = 0.4, IC95%[0.1 – 1.7], p= 0.2 respectively, AUC-ROC = 0.55). Similarly, there was no more risk of severe toxicities in intermediate low, intermediate high, and high risk groups compared to low risk groups of CRASH combined score (respectively OR = 1, IC95% [0.3 – 3.6], p= 0.99; OR = 1, IC95% [0.3 – 3.4], p= 0.9; OR = 1.5, IC95% [0.3 – 8.1], p= 0.67; AUC-ROC = 0.52). A multivariate predictive model including cancer type, performance status (PS 0 vs. PS 1-2), number of severe comorbidities (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, CIRS-G, ≥1 grade 3 or 4 comorbidity), body mass index (BMI > 25 kg/m² protective vs. normal BMI), and Chemotox score (1 vs. 0) had an AUC of 0.78. Conclusions: Neither CARG nor CRASH score was predictive of severe chemotherapy toxicities in the ELCAPA cohort. There is a need to identify new predictors of chemotherapy toxicity in older patients with solid cancers.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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