MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366990580 · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04415-8

The impact of unexpected intensive care unit admission after cancer surgery on long-term symptom burden among older adults: a population-based longitudinal analysis

2023· article· en· W4366990580 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bourke W. Tillmann, Julie Hallet, Rinku Sutradhar, Matthew P. Guttman, Natalie G. Coburn, Tyler R. Chesney, Jesse Zuckerman, Alyson Mahar, Wing C. Chan, Barbara Haas, Amy T. Hsu, Douglas G. Manuel, Frances C. Wright, Dov Gandell, Ines B. Menjak, Lesley Gotlib-Conn, Grace Paladino, Pietro Galuzzo

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchSunnybrook Research InstituteOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitConfoundingQuality of life (healthcare)Poisson regressionEmergency medicinePopulationCohortCancerCohort studyPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high-risk for a post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, yet little is known about the impact of these admissions on quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission on the burden of cancer symptoms among older adults who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of older adults (age ≥ 70) who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge in Ontario, Canada (2007-2017). Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a standardized tool that quantifies patient-reported physical, mental, and emotional symptoms, we described the burden of cancer symptoms during the year after surgery. Total symptom scores ≥ 40 indicated a moderate-to-severe symptom burden. Modified log-Poisson analysis was used to estimate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission (admission not related to routine monitoring) on the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden during the year after surgery, accounting for potential confounders. We then used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to model symptom trajectories among patients with two or more ESAS assessments. A 10-point difference in total symptom scores was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Among 16,560 patients (mean age 76.5 years; 43.4% female), 1,503 (9.1%) had an unexpected ICU admission. After accounting for baseline characteristics, patients with an unexcepted ICU admission were more likely to experience a moderate-to-severe symptom burden relative to those without an unexpected ICU admission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31-2.05). Specifically, among patients with an unexcepted ICU admission the average probability of experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms ranged from 6.9% (95 CI 5.8-8.3%) during the first month after surgery to 3.2% (95% CI 0.9-11.7%) at the end of the year. Among the 11,229 (67.8%) patients with multiple ESAS assessments, adjusted differences in total scores between patients with and without an unexpected ICU admission ranged from 2.0 to 5.7-points throughout the year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While unexpected ICU admissions are associated with a small increase in the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden, most patients do not experience a high overall symptom burden during the year after surgery. These findings support the role of aggressive therapy among older adults after major surgery.

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)0.003
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207