GRACE: A conversational AI platform for geriatric oncology risk and capability evaluation.

1658 Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional evaluation of health in older adults and endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for improved outcomes in geriatric cancer patients. However, CGA is underutilized due to time constraints and staffing shortages. Artificial intelligence (AI) can provide autonomous geriatric assessments (GA) but require validation. Methods: GRACE, an AI platform for GA via natural language interaction, was tested against manual GA. 70 adults aged ≥65 were enrolled from UCLA using the portal MyChart and at affiliated active senior living centers. 15 clinicians contributed qualitative perspectives. Concordance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement (Cohen’s κ, Gwet’s AC1). Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS), and patient and provider interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: GRACE showed high diagnostic performance (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.94, κ=0.63, AC1=0.82) with highest agreement in polypharmacy (κ≈0.97; AC1≈0.98). Usability was high (SUS >80th percentile) and 84% of participants reported confidence using GRACE. Clinicians endorsed GRACE as a practical pre-visit intake tool that integrates with electronic health records and facilitates timely referrals. Conclusions: GRACE demonstrates that conversational AI can replicate key elements of clinician-administered GA while reducing burden on oncology teams. Larger multi-site studies are warranted to evaluate clinical impact and integration into routine oncology practice. Performance of GRACE versus manual geriatric assessment. Domain Sensitivity (CI) Specificity (CI) PPV (CI) NPV (CI) Cohen's Kappa (CI) Gwet's AC1 (CI) General Health 0.872 (0.748, 0.940) 0.931 (0.891, 0.957) 0.719 (0.592, 0.819) 0.973 (0.943, 0.988) 0.741 (0.637, 0.845) 0.887 (0.839, 0.935) Physical 0.859 (0.760, 0.922) 0.971 (0.956, 0.981) 0.753 (0.649, 0.834) 0.985 (0.973, 0.992) 0.781 (0.704, 0.858) 0.953 (0.935, 0.970) Functional 0.563 (0.332, 0.769) 0.985 (0.971, 0.993) 0.529 (0.310, 0.738) 0.987 (0.974, 0.994) 0.532 (0.298, 0.765) 0.972 (0.957, 0.986) Social Support 0.629 (0.530, 0.718) 0.873 (0.839, 0.900) 0.508 (0.420, 0.596) 0.918 (0.889, 0.940) 0.458 (0.359, 0.558) 0.753 (0.702, 0.805) Psychological 0.570 (0.460, 0.673) 0.920 (0.894, 0.940) 0.506 (0.404, 0.607) 0.937 (0.913, 0.955) 0.465 (0.353, 0.576) 0.839 (0.802, 0.876) Comorbidity 0.641 (0.484, 0.773) 0.996 (0.989, 0.998) 0.862 (0.694, 0.945) 0.985 (0.975, 0.991) 0.726 (0.601, 0.851) 0.980 (0.971, 0.989) Polypharmacy 0.974 (0.865, 0.995) 1.000 (0.893, 1.000) 1.000 (0.906, 1.000) 0.970 (0.847, 0.995) 0.971 (0.915, 1.027) 0.972 (0.916, 1.027) Overall 0.721 (0.674, 0.763) 0.956 (0.949, 0.963) 0.649 (0.603, 0.692) 0.968 (0.962, 0.974) 0.645 (0.604, 0.687) 0.917 (0.907, 0.927)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.1658
Primary Topic
Frailty in Older Adults
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

GRACE: A conversational AI platform for geriatric oncology risk and capability evaluation.

Omer Liran, T Olaf Johnson, Arash Naeim, Helen Shang et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Frailty in Older Adults
article

GRACE: A conversational AI platform for geriatric oncology risk and capability evaluation.

Omer Liran, T Olaf Johnson, Arash Naeim, Helen Shang, Justin Cheng, Alex Bui, Zoe Krut, Muskaan Mehra, Mina S. Sedrak, Alexandra Bakshian, Raymond Wang, Ella Tetrault, Brennan Spiegel, Dian Amini
article en

Abstract

1658 Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional evaluation of health in older adults and endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for improved outcomes in geriatric cancer patients. However, CGA is underutilized due to time constraints and staffing shortages. Artificial intelligence (AI) can provide autonomous geriatric assessments (GA) but require validation. Methods: GRACE, an AI platform for GA via natural language interaction, was tested against manual GA. 70 adults aged ≥65 were enrolled from UCLA using the portal MyChart and at affiliated active senior living centers. 15 clinicians contributed qualitative perspectives. Concordance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement (Cohen’s κ, Gwet’s AC1). Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS), and patient and provider interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: GRACE showed high diagnostic performance (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.94, κ=0.63, AC1=0.82) with highest agreement in polypharmacy (κ≈0.97; AC1≈0.98). Usability was high (SUS >80th percentile) and 84% of participants reported confidence using GRACE. Clinicians endorsed GRACE as a practical pre-visit intake tool that integrates with electronic health records and facilitates timely referrals. Conclusions: GRACE demonstrates that conversational AI can replicate key elements of clinician-administered GA while reducing burden on oncology teams. Larger multi-site studies are warranted to evaluate clinical impact and integration into routine oncology practice. Performance of GRACE versus manual geriatric assessment. Domain Sensitivity (CI) Specificity (CI) PPV (CI) NPV (CI) Cohen's Kappa (CI) Gwet's AC1 (CI) General Health 0.872 (0.748, 0.940) 0.931 (0.891, 0.957) 0.719 (0.592, 0.819) 0.973 (0.943, 0.988) 0.741 (0.637, 0.845) 0.887 (0.839, 0.935) Physical 0.859 (0.760, 0.922) 0.971 (0.956, 0.981) 0.753 (0.649, 0.834) 0.985 (0.973, 0.992) 0.781 (0.704, 0.858) 0.953 (0.935, 0.970) Functional 0.563 (0.332, 0.769) 0.985 (0.971, 0.993) 0.529 (0.310, 0.738) 0.987 (0.974, 0.994) 0.532 (0.298, 0.765) 0.972 (0.957, 0.986) Social Support 0.629 (0.530, 0.718) 0.873 (0.839, 0.900) 0.508 (0.420, 0.596) 0.918 (0.889, 0.940) 0.458 (0.359, 0.558) 0.753 (0.702, 0.805) Psychological 0.570 (0.460, 0.673) 0.920 (0.894, 0.940) 0.506 (0.404, 0.607) 0.937 (0.913, 0.955) 0.465 (0.353, 0.576) 0.839 (0.802, 0.876) Comorbidity 0.641 (0.484, 0.773) 0.996 (0.989, 0.998) 0.862 (0.694, 0.945) 0.985 (0.975, 0.991) 0.726 (0.601, 0.851) 0.980 (0.971, 0.989) Polypharmacy 0.974 (0.865, 0.995) 1.000 (0.893, 1.000) 1.000 (0.906, 1.000) 0.970 (0.847, 0.995) 0.971 (0.915, 1.027) 0.972 (0.916, 1.027) Overall 0.721 (0.674, 0.763) 0.956 (0.949, 0.963) 0.649 (0.603, 0.692) 0.968 (0.962, 0.974) 0.645 (0.604, 0.687) 0.917 (0.907, 0.927)

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
University of California, Los Angeles (US), UCLA Health (US), Metro Health Hospital (US), UCLA Medical Center (US), Embedded Systems (United States) (US), Sinai Health System (US), UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Frailty in Older Adults
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.