MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408819674 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319943

Geriatric assessment domains as predictors for clinical endpoints in older adults with cancer: Protocol for an updated systematic review

2025· article· en· W4408819674 on OpenAlexaff
Schroder Sattar, Efthymios Papadopoulos, Kristen R. Haase, Cara Bradley, Caroline Mariano, Isabel Tejero, Rana Jin, Martine Puts, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of ReginaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMEDLINEMeta-analysisMedicineSystematic reviewProtocol (science)Data extractionPsychological interventionAlternative medicinePathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geriatric assessments (GA) are increasingly used to inform treatment decision making and tailoring supportive care for older adults with cancer. Identifying which domains predict clinically relevant outcomes might be particularly useful for risk stratification in settings where a GA is not available and/or feasible. The objective of this updated systematic review is to evaluate individual GA domains as predictors for mortality and treatment-related outcomes. Eligible studies will be identified using a predefined search strategy developed in collaboration with an expert librarian in electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL) and comprise peer-reviewed papers published in any language from July 2017 and reporting on the prospective association between individual GA domains and mortality as well as surgical- or systemic treatment-related outcomes in older adults with cancer. All title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction will be performed independently by at least 2 authors. Information on cut-offs of GA domains will also be extracted to assess for variability across studies. A decision on performing a meta-analysis versus a narrative summary will be made based on predetermined criteria, which will include heterogeneity among studies and variability in GA tools and cutoff used for each individual domain, as well as level of risk of bias. If a meta-analysis is indicated, a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024580404). This review seeks to investigate individual GA domains as predictors for patient- and treatment-related outcomes. Findings may inform efforts on optimizing GA for this population.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.021
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.008

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→