Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38925539›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024

Comparing Clinician Estimates versus a Statistical Tool for Predicting Risk of Death within 45 Days of Admission for Cancer Patients.

Adrianna Z Herskovits, Tiffanny Newman, Kevin Nicholas, Cesar F Colorado-Jimenez, Claire E Perry, Alisa Valentino, Isaac Wagner, Barbara Egan, Dmitriy Gorenshteyn, Andrew J Vickers and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Adrianna Z HerskovitsDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Tiffanny NewmanDepartment of Strategy and Innovation, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Kevin NicholasDepartment of Strategy and Innovation, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Cesar F Colorado-JimenezDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Claire E PerryDepartment of Strategy and Innovation, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Alisa ValentinoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Isaac WagnerDepartment of Strategy and Innovation, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Barbara EganDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Dmitriy GorenshteynThirty Madison, New York, New York, United States.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States.
Melissa S PessinDepartment of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile clinical practice guidelines recommend that oncologists discuss goals of care with patients who have advanced cancer, it is estimated that less than 20% of individuals admitted to the hospital with high-risk cancers have end-of-life discussions with their providers. While there has been interest in developing models for mortality prediction to trigger such discussions, few studies have compared how such models compare with clinical judgment to determine a patient's mortality risk.

methodsThis study is a prospective analysis of 1,069 solid tumor medical oncology hospital admissions (

resultsWithin 45 days following hospital admission, 229 (25%) of 911 patients died. The model performed better than the clinician estimates (AUC 0.834 vs. 0.753,

conclusionThe inpatient prognosis at admission model is a robust tool to assist clinical providers in evaluating mortality risk, and it has recently been implemented in the electronic medical record at our institution to improve end-of-life care planning for hospitalized cancer patients.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient AdmissionRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID38925539
PMCPMC11208110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.