MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

01 / SCREENING AND RISK FACTORS FOR MALNUTRITION IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH CANCER

2018· preprint· en· W4212778156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beatrice J. Edwards

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionEnvironmental healthCancerMedicineGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

healthcare systems and financial distress inequalities among patients with advanced cancer.Co-authorstC. Barberet1, M. Filbet2, S. Sanchez3, M. Delgado4, E. Bruera5.1Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Grenoble, Department of Supportive and Palliative Care, Grenoble-, France.2service de soins palliaitfs pavillon1K CHLS CHU de Lyon, Palliative Medecine, Pierre Benite LYON, France.3Hu00f4pitaux Champagne Sud, Department of Medical Information Evaluation and Performance, Troyes, France.4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Palliative- Rehabilitation- and Integrative Medicine-, Houston Texas, France.5University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Palliative- Rehabilitation- and Integrative Medicine, Houston- TX, USA.Introduction:Financial distress (FD) is a common cause of suffering in patients with advanced cancer. There is limited data to compare the effects of FD of advanced cancer patient in two different health systems (US and France)ObjectivesTo compare the frequency and intensity of Financial Distress (FD) and its associations with symptom distress and quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced cancer in France and US.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of two cross-sectional studies with 292 patients enrolled in the USA (149 patients) and in France (143 patients). Self-rated FD (subjective experience of distress attributed to financial problems) numeric rating scale (0=best, 10=worst) and validated questionnaires assessed symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)], psychosocial-distress [Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS)], and QOL (FACT-G).ResultsThe average age was 59 (10SD),144 (49%) patients were female. In France FD was reported in 74 (52%) vs. 129 (88%) in the US (p<0.001). Severe FD (u22654/10) was reported in 100 US patients (68%) vs. 48 (34%) in France (p<0.001). QOL was better in the USA than in France (respectively 69 versus 63; p=0.003). French patients had more anxiety (8 versus 6; p=0.008) and depression (7 versus 6; p=0.004). FD was associated with the country USA, single status (0.907; p=0.023) and the presence of metastasis (1.538; p=0.036).Conclusions Even lower than US patients with advanced cancer , the FD is hight in French patients despite a free cancer care access. Further research focusing on indirect costs is needed.

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)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→