Defining an abnormal geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer: Which deficits matter most?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12039 Background: At present, there is no universal, objective, and evidence-based definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology (GO). In the literature, a threshold number of abnormal GA domains (ranging from 1-4) is often used to define an abnormal GA. However, it is not well-established whether having a specific number of abnormal domains more frequently leads to treatment plan modification (TPM), a key goal of GA, or if particular domains have a greater impact on TPM. The primary objectives of this study are: (1) to determine how well the current definitions of an abnormal GA predict TPM following GA, and (2) to identify particular GA domains associated with TPM. Methods: A retrospective review of the GO clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre was conducted. All new patients seen in clinic from May 22, 2015 to June 10, 2022 who met the following criteria were included: (1) referred for treatment decision making, (2) received a complete GA, and (3) had a proposed oncologic treatment plan. Demographic, oncologic, and GA-domain variables were extracted. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling was conducted using SPSS to determine each variable’s association with TPM; age, sex, frailty (VES-13) score, and treatment intent were included in all multivariate models. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each model. Results: The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years (61-100), 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability. In univariate analysis, age, VES-13 score, disease stage, treatment intent, all GA domains (except Medication Optimization and Social Supports), and all threshold numbers of abnormal domains (except 1 and 7) were significantly associated (p-value < 0.050) with TPM. The best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains in univariate analysis was 4 (AUC 0.628). Overall, the best-performing multivariate model based on AUC was the model containing all 6 significant GA domains (AUC 0.710). In this model, age, treatment intent, Comorbidities, Falls Risk, and Cognition were independently associated with TPM (p-value < 0.05). The multivariate model with a threshold of 4 abnormal domains alone had an AUC of 0.689 and age, VES-13 score, treatment intent, and the threshold were independently associated with TPM. Of the models which included a single GA domain plus the threshold, the models with Comorbidities and Cognition performed best, having AUCs of 0.699 and 0.700, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that an abnormal GA (leading to TPM) may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of Comorbidities, Falls Risk, and Cognition. In terms of a strictly numerical threshold, a GA may be best defined as abnormal if at least 4 GA domains are abnormal. When at least 4 GA domains are abnormal, abnormalities in Comorbidities and Cognition appear to best predict TPM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".