MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Frailty risk assessment and impact on acute myeloid leukemia outcomes (FRAIL-AML): A population-based study from Ontario, Canada.

2024· article· en· W4399519807 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gopila Gupta, Sho Podolsky, Ning Liu, Matthew C. Cheung, Aniket Bankar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyeloid leukemiaPopulationLeukemiaGerontologyIntensive care medicineOncologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6506 Background: In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), treatment decisions, specifically intensive versus non-intensive approaches, depend on the clinician’s assessment of patient fitness. Frailty as a measure of fitness is a broader concept than commodities and is associated with worse outcomes in many cancers. Frailty assessment is incorporated to provide the precision to oncology treatment selections in addition to disease-related factors. The impact of frailty on outcomes in AML is not well studied. Methods: This retrospective cohort study from population-based health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (ICES) included all patients (pts) ≥18 years diagnosed with AML between 2006 and 2021, treated within 90 days after diagnosis. Frailty was measured using McIsaacs’s frailty index (MFI)- a validated tool. Progressively increasing tertiles of MFI were categorized as fit (FT), pre-frail (PFR), or frail (FR). Treatment intensity was classified as intensive (IT) or non-intensive (NIT) based on standard practices. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Association of frailty with OS was measured using Cox regression separately for IT and NIT AML. Results: Out of 5450 pts, with a median age of 65 (IQR 54-74), 55.8% were males and 44.2% were females. 65% (n=3543) received IT, out of which 29.4% and 35.5% pts were FR and PFR respectively. Remaining 35% (n=1907) received NIT, with 41.1% and 32.3% pts being FR and PFR. Median overall survival in months (OS, 95% CI) for the entire group, IT, and NIT were 12.5 (12.0-13.2), 16.7 (15.7-18.2), and 7.6 (7.0-8.2), respectively. OS (table) was notably lower in FR pts compared to fit pts (p<0.0001) in both IT and NIT. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified frailty, advanced age, and previous non-AML malignancy as risk factors associated with worse OS in both IT and NIT groups (table). Conclusions: Higher frailty is independently associated with worse OS in AML pts after adjusting for advanced age. A substantial proportion of AML pts in both IT and NIT groups exhibit a mismatch in treatment intensity assignments based on their frailty status, with about 30 % FR pts receiving IT and over 25 % FT pts receiving NIT. This study sheds light on the need for frailty evaluations using standardized tools to optimize treatment decisions in AML pts. [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 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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→