Can We Make More Accurate Prognoses During Last Days of Life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Life expectancy prediction is important for end-of-life planning. Established methods (Palliative Performance Scale [PPS], Palliative Prognostic Index [PPI]) have been validated for intermediate- to long-term prognoses, but last-weeks-of-life prognosis has not been well studied. Patients admitted to a palliative care facility often have a life expectancy of less than three weeks. Reliable last-weeks-of-life prognostic tools are needed. Method:This prospective study included all patients admitted to a palliative care facility in Montreal, Canada, over one year. PPS and PPI were assessed until patients' death. Seven prognostic clinical signs of impending death (Short-Term Prognosis Signs [SPS]) were documented daily. Results:The analyses included 273 patients (76% cancer). The median survival time for a PPS ≤20% was 2.5 days, while for a PPS ≥50% it was 44.5 days, for a PPI >8 the median survival was 3.5 days and for a PPI ≤4 it was 38.5 days. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed a high accuracy in predicting survival. Median survival after the first occurrence of any SPS was below one week. Conclusions:This study demonstrated that the PPS and PPI perform well between one week and three months extending their usefulness to shorter term survival prediction. SPS items provided survival information during the last week of life. Using SPS along with PPS and PPI during the last weeks of life could enable a more precise short-term survival prediction across various end-of-life diagnoses. The translation of this research into clinical practice could lead to a better adapted treatment, the identification of a most appropriate care setting for patients, and improved communication of prognosis with patients and families.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".