Defining an Abnormal Geriatric Assessment: Which Deficits Matter Most?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology. Various threshold numbers of abnormal GA domains are often used, but how well these are associated with treatment plan modification (TPM) and whether specific GA domains are more important in this context remains uncertain. A retrospective review of the geriatric oncology clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, including new patients seen for treatment decision making from May 2015 to June 2022, was conducted. Logistic regression modelling was performed to determine the association between various predictor variables (including the GA domains and numerical thresholds) and TPM. The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years, 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability (≥3). In the univariable analysis, the best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains based on area under the curve (AUC) was 4 (AUC 0.628). The best-performing multivariable model (AUC 0.704) included cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. In comparison, the multivariable model with the sole addition of the threshold of 4 had an AUC of 0.689. Overall, an abnormal GA may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. The optimal numerical threshold to predict TPM is 4.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".