Identifying prognostic factors for survival in advanced cancer patients: a prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify potential prognostic factors affecting the survival in patients with advanced cancer in a local palliative care unit. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Palliative Care Unit of a regional hospital in Hong Kong. PATIENTS: All advanced cancer in-patients and out-patients who were enrolled into the palliative care service of the United Christian Hospital between January and December 2002 were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential prognostic factors including demographic data, tumour characteristics, blood parameters, functional status, co-morbidities, total symptom score, and psychosocial parameters were recorded upon enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were eligible for analysis; their mean age was 69 (standard deviation, 12) years, of which 106 (62%) were male. Overall median survival was 77 (interquartile range, 31-160) days. The most frequent primary malignancy was lung (n=58, 34%), followed by liver (n= 24, 14%) and lower gastro-intestinal tract (n=24, 14%). By univariate analysis, 11 factors affected survival, including: age (P=0.040), number of metastatic sites involved (P=0.001), peritoneal metastases (P=0.009), skin metastases (P=0.011), tachycardia (P=0.009), serum albumin concentration (P<0.001), white cell count (P=0.002), Karnofsky Performance Status score (P<0.001), Hamilton Depression Scale score (P=0.004), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score (P=0.003), and McGill Quality of Life (Hong Kong)-single item score (P=0.002). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that only age (hazard ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.96), number of metastatic sites involved (1.33; 1.13-1.56), serum albumin concentration (0.95; 0.92-0.98), Karnofsky Performance Status score (0.86; 0.78-0.96), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score (1.22; 1.05-1.41) were independent prognosticators. CONCLUSION: Age, number of involved metastatic sites, serum albumin, Karnofsky Performance Scale score, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score were independent prognosticators. Further studies are needed to provide a prognostic instrument applicable in local clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".