Palliative care as a predictor of healthcare resource use at end-of-life in adult Albertan lung cancer decedents between 2008-2015: A secondary data analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e24009 Background: Early utilization of specialist palliative care (SPC) in cancer patients may reduce healthcare resource use, aggressive interventions, and costs at end-of-life. We evaluated the impact of SPC on healthcare resource utilization and aggressive interventions at end-of-life in patients who have died from lung cancer. Methods: Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted on lung cancer decedents in the Calgary Zone, Alberta Health Services from 2008 to 2015. The primary exposure was timing of SPC (Early: receipt of SPC > = 90 days before death; Late: < 90 days before death; No SPC). The primary outcome was end-of-life healthcare resource use (defined as any of: hospital death, > 1 emergency department visit, > 1 hospital admission, > 14 days of hospitalization, ≥1 intensive care unit admission, ≥1 new chemotherapy program (or any chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life) in the 30 days prior to death. Results: There were 3300 patients of which the majority (51.6%) of decedents were male. More female versus male lung cancer decedents (36.4% vs 28.7%) received early SPC. After adjusting for confounders, a strong association was found between early, late or no SPC and end-of-life healthcare resource use (ORno exposure 3.25 (95% CI 2.41-4.40) vs ORlate exposure 2.44 (95% CI 2.03-2.92) compared to those with early SPC; p < 0.001). Males had 1.53 the odds of aggressive care at end-of-life compared to females (p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by sex revealed a strong association between the absence of SPC utilization and end-of-life healthcare resource use. Young age ( < 50 at death) was a strong driver of aggressive care at end-of-life in females versus males [OR 5.44 vs 2.53]. Conclusions: Early specialist palliative care was significantly associated with less end-of-life healthcare resource use in both male and female lung cancer decedents, with less early specialist palliative care use in males. Keywords: palliative care, early palliative care, cancer, end-of-life, healthcare resource use, lung cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".