MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873713 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.312

A312 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PHYSICAL SYMPTOM BURDEN AMONG PATIENTS WITH PANCREATIC CANCER

2024· article· en· W4391873713 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rishad Khan, M Salim, Peter Tanuseputro, Amy T. Hsu, Robert Talarico, Anastasia Gayowsky, Colleen Webber, Hsien Seow, Rinku Sutradhar, Paul D. James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOttawa HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPancreatic cancerPhysical activityMedicineCancerEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) experience substantial physical symptoms. Factors associated with symptom burden in PDAC are not well described. Aims To evaluate risk factors for symptoms assessed through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scales (ESAS) among patients with PDAC. Methods We included patients diagnosed with PDAC and associated ESAS forms at diagnosis between January 1 2007 to December 31 2020 in Ontario, Canada. The ESAS contains nine symptoms (pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, loss of appetite, well being, and shortness of breath) on a scale from 0 to 10. Our outcomes were moderate to severe (ESAS scores 4 and above) physical symptoms (pain, tiredness, nausea, poor appetite, drowsiness, and dyspnea). We analyzed associations between baseline variables and outcomes using multivariable regression models. Covariates included age, sex, tumour location, cancer stage, index cancer-directed therapy (surgery, surgery and chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, radiation, and no cancer-directed therapy), distance to cancer centre, comorbidities, and access to a family physician. Results We identified 4918 patients (mean age 68 years, 52% male) with one or more ESAS records. Most patients (61%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. At diagnosis, 30%, 37%, 14%, 34%, 25%, and 15% reported moderate to severe pain, tiredness, nausea, poor appetite, drowsiness, and shortness of breath respectively. Six months after diagnosis, 42%, 59%, 25%, 51%, 41%, and 23% reported moderate to severe pain, tiredness, nausea, poor appetite, drowsiness, and dyspnea respectively. At 6 months, moderate to severe pain was associated with baseline dyspnea (p=0.003) and pain (pampersand:003C0.001), moderate to severe tiredness was associated with increasing age (p=0.04), female sex (p=0.02), pre-existing coronary disease (p=0.030), and baseline pain (p=0.010), and tiredness (pampersand:003C0.001), moderate to severe nausea was associated with female sex (pampersand:003C0.001), pre-existing osteoarthritis (p=0.010), and baseline depression (0.006), nausea (pampersand:003C0.001), and pain (pampersand:003C0.001), moderate to severe poor appetite was associated with female sex (pampersand:003C0.001), and baseline poor appetite (pampersand:003C0.001) and tiredness (p=0.490), moderate to severe drowsiness was associated with receipt of radiation therapy (p=0.003), pre-existing arrhythmia (p=0.026), and baseline depression (p=0.029), drowsiness (pampersand:003C0.001), and dyspnea (p=0.010), and moderate to severe dyspnea was associated with age (p=0.010), pre-existing COPD (pampersand:003C0.001), and baseline dyspnea (pampersand:003C0.001), and tiredness (p=0.023). Conclusions Patients with PDAC and physical symptoms at diagnosis are more likely to have corresponding moderate to severe symptoms later on. Universal physician symptom screening may enable improved symptom management. Funding Agencies CIHR

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→