MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prevalence and predictors of high-intensity end-of-life care among adolescents and young adults with cancer in Ontario: a population-based study using the IMPACT cohort.

2020· article· en· W3031216611 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hallie Coltin, Adam Rapoport, Chenthila Nagamuthu, Nancy N. Baxter, Paul C. Nathan, Jason D. Pole, Franco Momoli, Sumit Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineEnd-of-life carePopulationRetrospective cohort studyEmergency departmentIntensive care unitMechanical ventilationCohortCause of deathEmergency medicineCancerYoung adultAdvance care planningCohort studyPediatricsPalliative careInternal medicineDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10559 Background: End-of-life (EOL) care in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer is poorly characterized, though this group may be at risk of elevated rates of high-intensity (HI) care and consequently, increased EOL suffering. Few population-based studies exist, and are limited by incomplete clinical information. AYA care patterns can vary by locus of care (LOC – pediatric v. adult), but LOC disparities in AYA EOL care are unstudied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective decedent population-based cohort study of all Ontario AYA diagnosed between 15-21 years of age with 6 prevalent primary cancers between 1992-2012, who died ≤5 years from diagnosis. Chart-abstracted clinical data were linked to health services data. The primary composite outcome (HI-EOL care) included any of: intravenous chemotherapy ≤14 days from death; > 1 emergency department visit ≤30 days from death; or > 1 hospitalization or intensive care unit (ICU) admission ≤30 days from death. Secondary outcomes included measures of the most invasive (MI) EOL care: mechanical ventilation ≤14 days from death, and death in the ICU. Factors associated with HI-EOL were examined. Results: Of 483 patients, 292 (60.5%) experienced HI-EOL care, 98 (20.3%) were mechanically ventilated ≤14 days from death, and 110 (22.8%) died in the ICU. Patients with hematological malignancies (v. solid tumors) were at greatest risk of HI-EOL care (OR, 2.3; 95CI, 1.5-3.5, p < 0.01), mechanical ventilation (OR, 5.4; 95CI, 3.0-9.7, p < 0.01), and death in an ICU (OR, 4.9; 95CI, 2.8-8.5, p < 0.01). AYA who died in a pediatric center were substantially more likely to experience MI-EOL measures compared to those dying in adult centers (mechanical ventilation, OR 3.2, 95CI 1.3-7.6, p = 0.01). Assessment of interactions showed LOC-based disparities widening over the study period (ICU death in pediatric v. adult centres: early period OR 0.9, 95CI 0.3-2.9, p = 0.91; late period OR 3.3, 95CI 1.2-9.2, p = 0.02; interaction term p = 0.04). AYA living in rural areas were also at higher risk of experiencing mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.0; 95CI, 1.0-3.8, p = 0.04) and death in ICU (OR, 2.1; 95CI, 1.1-4.0, p = 0.02). Conclusions: AYA with cancer experience high rates of HI-EOL care, with patients in pediatric centers and those living in rural areas at highest risk of MI-EOL care. Our study is the first to identify LOC-based disparities in AYA EOL care. Future studies should explore mechanisms underlying these disparities, including potential differences in palliative care services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→