Development and Validation of a Survival Prediction Model for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) face challenging treatment decisions following their diagnosis. We developed and validated a survival prognostication model using routinely available clinical information, patient-reported symptoms, performance status, and initial cancer-directed treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with PDAC from 2007 to 2020 using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model development (75%) and validation (25%). Using the development cohort, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with backward stepwise variable selection was used to predict the probability of survival. Model performance was assessed on the validation cohort using the concordance index and calibration plots. RESULTS: There were 17,450 patients (49% female) with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range 63-81) and a mean survival time of 9 months. In the derivation cohort, 1,469 patients (11%) had early stage, 4,202 (32%) had advanced stage disease, and 7,417 (57%) had unknown stage. The following factors were associated with an increased risk of death by more than 10%: tumor in the tail of the pancreas; advanced stage; hospitalization 3 months before diagnosis; congestive heart failure or dementia; low, moderate, or high pain score; moderate or high appetite score; high dyspnea and tiredness score; and a performance status score of 60-70 or lower. The calibration plot indicated good agreement with a C-index of 0.76. DISCUSSION: This model accurately predicted one-year survival for PDAC using clinical factors, symptoms, and performance status. This model may foster shared decision making for patients and their providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".