MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306682001 · doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100652

The impact of frailty on health outcomes in older adults with lung cancer: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4306682001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Fletcher, Sarah Therese Fox, Natasha Reid, Ruth E. Hubbard, Rahul Ladwa

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Treatment and Research Communications · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerHazard ratioQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyPopulationDiscontinuationCancerInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Frailty is prevalent in older adults with lung cancer, however the impact of frailty in this population is not well understood. The aim of this review was to evaluate the outcomes that are measured in frail older adults with lung cancer, and to determine the associations between frailty and these outcomes. : A systematic online search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify all English-language studies between January 2015 and May 2022 prospectively evaluating frailty and outcomes in older adults (median age > 65 years) with lung cancer. Studies were excluded if frailty was defined by a single domain assessment or not clearly defined. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. : Of 1891 studies screened, 16 met inclusion criteria. The median number of patients was 96 (range 26-494) and the mean age was 76.6 years. Eight different frailty assessments were used, and frailty definitions varied widely. The most frequently assessed outcomes were overall survival (n=13,81%), treatment-related toxicity (n=8,50%), hospitalisation (n=5,31%), and treatment completion/discontinuation (n=4,25%). Quality of life (n=3,19%), function (n=1,6%), frailty trajectory (n=1,6%), and emergency visits (n=1,6%) were infrequently assessed. Frailty had a strong and consistent association with mortality (Hazard Ratio range: 3.5-11.91). It was also associated with treatment-related toxicity and treatment selection. The remaining outcomes were not statistically significant. : These data support frailty as an important predictor of mortality in older adults with lung cancer, however further research is warranted to determine the association between frailty and other meaningful endpoints for this vulnerable population. Micro-Abstract This review systematically analysed 16 studies to determine which outcomes have been prospectively assessed in frail older adults with lung cancer. We found that while frailty was consistently associated with adverse outcomes such as mortality and treatment-related toxicity, very few studies assessed more patient-centred outcomes such as quality of life, symptoms, functional decline, or frailty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Treatment and Research CommunicationsSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207