Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Are Prognostic Scores Better Than Clinician Judgment? A Prospective Study Using Three Models
Yusuke Hiratsuka1, Sang-Yeon Suh1, David Hui1
1Department of Palliative Medicine (Y.H.), Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (Y.H., A.I.), Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; Department of Family Medicine (S.Y.S.), Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, South Korea; Department of Medicine (S.Y.S.), Dongguk University Medical School, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Palliative Care (D.H.), Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Division of Palliative and Supportive Care (T.M., M.M.), Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan; Department of Biostatistics (S.O.), JORTC Data Center, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (K.A.), National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Seirei Hospice (K.I.), Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (M.B.), Suita Tokushukai Hospital, Suita, Japan; Department of Internal Medicine (H.K.), Hatsukaichi Memorial Hospital, Hatsukaichi, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (T.H.), Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan; Department of Palliative Care (I.M.), Senri Chuo Hospital, Toyonaka, Japan; Division of Clinical Medicine (J.H.), Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Context:
Several prognostic models such as the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) have been developed to complement clinician's prediction of survival (CPS). However, few studies with large scales have been conducted to show which prognostic tool had better performance than CPS in patients with weeks of survival.
Objectives:
We aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS in inpatients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs).
Methods:
This study was part of a multi-center prospective observational study involving patients admitted to PCUs in Japan. We computed their prognostic performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and calibration plots for seven, 14-, 30- and 60-day survival.
Results:
We included 1896 patients with a median overall survival of 19 days. The AUROC was 73% to 84% for 60-day and 30-day survival, 75% to 84% for 14-day survival, and 80% to 87% for seven-day survival. The calibration plot demonstrated satisfactory agreement between the observational and predictive probability for the four indices in all timeframes. Therefore, all four prognostic indices showed good performance. CPS and PaP consistently had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI from one-week to two-month timeframes.
Conclusion:
The PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS had relatively good performance in patients admitted to PCUs with weeks of survival. CPS and PaP had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI. CPS may be sufficient for experienced clinicians while PPS may help to improve prognostic confidence for inexperienced clinicians.
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Cancer Survival Analysis
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot

