Feasibility of the geriatric assessment in older caregivers of older adults with cancer to guide supportive care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
224 Background: Older caregivers of older patients with cancer are at high risk for adverse physical and psychological outcomes. Performing a caregiver geriatric assessment (GA) may help identify caregivers at increased risk of adverse outcomes and guide supportive care strategies. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility of a GA to evaluate age-related conditions, and physical and emotional health of both patients and caregivers. Methods: Caregivers aged 65+ and patients aged 65+ with diagnosis of cancer receiving a new line of cancer treatment and caregivers aged 65+ were recruited (Goal 60 dyads; current N=40). Patient and caregiver physical and emotional health was captured using the GA which included assessment of physical function (activities of daily living [ADLs], instrumental activities of daily living [IADLs], Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB], fall history), comorbidity, psychological health (Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS], General Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MOCA] or Blessed Orientation Memory Concentration [BOMC]), Social Support (Older Americans Resources and Services [OARS] Social Support), polypharmacy, nutrition, caregiver Environmental Mastery, and Modified Caregiver Strain Index. Results: Of 40 dyads who have consented, 17 dyads (42%) completed the GA, 14 dyad GAs are pending (35%), eight have withdrawn (20%), and one was lost to follow-up (2.5%). Mean time for caregivers to complete self-reported GA assessment was 47 minutes (range 20-120 minutes) and return to study staff was 5 days (range 0-22 days). Caregivers had mean age 78 years (range 65-85), 100% white, 94% female, and 94% spouses. Caregivers had high prevalence of age-related conditions, including comorbidities (mean 3.7), impairments in ADLs (24%), IADLs (31%), and physical function (55%). More patients than caregivers screened positive for depression (29% vs 12%) and anxiety (17% vs 6%). Caregivers reported high mastery (Ryff subscale, mean 38, range 26-49) and low strain (4.4, range 0-16). Conclusions: The GA is feasible to use in older cancer caregivers to help identify aging related conditions that may influence caregiving ability. Future work should identify how GA in older cancer caregivers can be used to identify intervention strategies to optimize caregiving abilities and improve outcomes in both older adults with cancer and their caregivers. Clinical trial information: NCT05244915 .[Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".