MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using the Risk Assessment Index to predict mortality and quality of life in breast and gynecologic cancer patients.

2020· article· en· W3092568945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Ormond, Jeffrey D. Borrebach, Stefanie C Altieri Dunn, Andrew Bilderback, G. J. van Londen, Daniel L. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerGynecologic cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Gynecologic oncologyCancerDepression (economics)Internal medicineAnxietyGynecologyOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

239 Background: Cancer patients vary considerably in health status making it challenging to evaluate the risk of complications from cancer treatment. To aid oncologists in identifying patients with highest risk for adverse outcomes, we investigated the Risk Assessment Index (RAI), a validated tool used to assess frailty in patients prior to elective surgery. We assessed whether the RAI could serve to predict mortality, hospital utilization, and quality of life in cancer patients. Methods: Participants were breast and gynecological cancer patients treated at UPMC Magee Women’s Cancer Center who completed the RAI between July 2016 and December 2017. Patients completed patient reported outcomes (PROs) during each visit including the Short Form (SF)-12, Edmonton Symptom Assessment, anxiety and depression screens, and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and were analyzed up to 180 days from the RAI date. Mortality was assessed at 90, 180, and 365-day intervals, and hospital utilization was assessed within 90-days of RAI. Results: There were 1,764 unique breast and gynecological cancer patients. Significant correlations between the RAI and mortality were observed for both groups with frail patients having higher rates of mortality at each interval. Frailty was associated with higher rates of hospitalization compared to non-frail patients (31% vs 20%, p = 0.05 & 50% vs 34%, p = 0.02 for breast and gynecologic patients, respectively). Frailty correlated with fair/poor ratings on the SF-12 for breast and gynecologic patients (r = 0.13, p = 0.01; r = 0.37 p < 0.001, respectively). On the Edmonton, frailty correlated with lower ratings of well-being in breast cancer patients (r = 0.11, p = 0.012) and higher symptom burden in gynecological patients (r = 0.23, p = 0.01). No correlations were observed between the RAI and anxiety or depression. For gynecologic patients, there were significant correlations between the RAI and MDASI with frail patients having higher rates of pain, fatigue, appetite, diarrhea, and memory. Conclusions: We demonstrated that the RAI is correlated with mortality, self-reported quality of life, and hospitalizations in breast and gynecologic cancer patients. Using this tool to risk-stratify patients may help to guide shared decision-making discussions and provide appropriate treatment and/or supportive services for this vulnerable population.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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