MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406100792 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-83545-7

Use of inpatient palliative care in metastatic testicular cancer patients undergoing critical care therapy: insights from the national inpatient sample

2025· article· en· W4406100792 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Cano Garcia, Reha‐Baris Incesu, Francesco Barletta, Simone Morra, Lukas Scheipner, Andrea Baudo, Stefano Tappero, Mattia Luca Piccinelli, Zhe Tian, Fred Saad, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Carlo Terrone, Ottavio De Cobelli, Luca Carmignani, Sascha Ahyai, Nicola Longo, Derya Tilki, Alberto Briganti, Séverine Banek, Luis Kluth, Felix K.‐H. Chun, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyCancerPalliative careInternal medicineLogistic regressionTesticular cancerPEG ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To test for rates of inpatient palliative care (IPC) in metastatic testicular cancer patients receiving critical care therapy (CCT). Within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2008-2019), we tabulated IPC rates in metastatic testicular cancer patients receiving CCT, namely invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG), dialysis for acute kidney failure (AKF), total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or tracheostomy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models addressing IPC were fitted. Of 420 metastatic testicular cancer patients undergoing CCT, 70 (17%) received IPC. Between 2008 and 2019, the rates of IPC among metastatic testicular cancer patients undergoing CCT increased from 5 to 19%, with the highest rate of 30% in 2018 (EAPC: + 9.5%; 95% CI + 4.7 to + 15.2%; p = 0.005). IPC patients were older (35 vs. 31 years, p = 0.01), more frequently had do not resuscitate (DNR) status (34 vs. 4%, p < 0.001), more frequently exhibited brain metastases (29 vs. 17%, p = 0.03), were more frequently treated with IMV (76 vs. 53%, p < 0.001) and exhibited higher rate of inpatient mortality (74 vs. 29%, p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, DNR status (OR 10.23, p < 0.001) and African American race/ethnicity (OR 4.69, p = 0.003) were identified as independent predictors of higher IPC use. We observed a significant increase in rates of IPC use in metastatic testicular cancer patients receiving CCT, rising from 5 to 19% between 2008 and 2019. However, this rates remain lower compared to metastatic lung cancer patients, indicating the need for further awareness among clinicians treating metastatic testicular cancer. The increase in IPC rates for metastatic testicular cancer patients receiving CCT indicates a need for ongoing education and awareness among healthcare providers. This could enhance the integration of IPC in the treatment of advanced cancer, potentially improving quality of life and care outcomes for survivors.

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)0.006
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→