Abstract 4141: Access to medical or radiation oncology consultation in patients who died from cancer in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District of Northeastern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sudbury-Manitoulin district is located in Northeastern Ontario, Canada, and resident cancer patients often receive care at the Northeast Cancer Centre (NECC), a Cancer Care Ontario regional cancer program located at Health Sciences North in Sudbury. In 2008, as part of enhancing services in this district, the NECC established an ambulatory Palliative Clinic. Presently, referral to this clinic occurs subsequent to a patient consultation with a medical or radiation oncology specialist. Using administrative data, the primary purpose of this population-based retrospective study was to estimate the percentage of patients who died from cancer without having had the opportunity to access this clinic through a prior documented medical or radiation oncology consultation during the interval of 2004-2008. A secondary purpose was to determine factors associated with never having received this specialized medical consult. Data was obtained through The Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project (`cd-link') an initiative of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research/Cancer Care Ontario Health Services Research Program. For each index case, we constructed a timeline (days) of all Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) billing codes and associated service dates, from primary cancer diagnosis through to cancer death. Our main outcome variable, consultation with a medical or radiation oncologist, was dichotomized as “ever” or “never”. A total of 6,683 individuals with a valid primary cancer diagnosis record died from any cancer cause in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District within the 5 year period from 2004-2008. Most (n=5988, 89.6%) had one primary cancer diagnoses. For this subgroup, and excluding those with a disease duration of 0 days (n=67), about 18.4% (n=1088/5921) never consulted a medical or radiation oncologist through their disease trajectory. Multivariable logistic regression identified three significant and independent predictors of having never received a consultation. Older age and rural residence were associated with increased risk of “never consultation”, with adjusted Odds Ratio (OR)s of 7.13 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.68-13.81) and 1.77 (95% CI 1.51-2.06) for residents 80 years and older, or living in a rural residence, respectively. A longer duration of disease was associated with a decreased risk, with an OR of 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99). While there are limitations to using administrative data, we estimate that 18.4% of the residents in this area did not benefit from a specialized consultation about their cancer care, which could also have included suitability and timing of referral to the palliative care clinic. Specific strategies directed towards older and rural patients may help to address this important access to care issue. Citation Format: Michael Conlon, Mark Hartman, Barbara Ballantyne, Mary Bewick, Margaret Meigs, Natalie Aubin, Andrew Knight. Access to medical or radiation oncology consultation in patients who died from cancer in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District of Northeastern Ontario, Canada. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 4141. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-4141
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".