The Cost of Lung Cancer in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. In addition, lung cancer has a significant economic impact on society. OBJECTIVE: To present an economic analysis of the actual care costs of lung cancer which will allow comparison with, and verification of, cost estimates that were developed through modelling and opinion. METHODS: A chart review was conducted of incident cases (circa 1998) of primary bronchogenic lung cancer. Cases were censored at two years from the date of diagnosis. Relevant clinical and health utilization data were collected. Health utilization data included hospital and institutional outpatient (ie, ambulatory clinic) costs. Cost estimates were derived for over 200 specific health services. The present analysis was performed from the economic perspective of the health care institution. RESULTS: A total of 13,389 health service events were captured with an estimated total cost of $8.4 million. Laboratory tests, diagnostic imaging and ambulatory visits constituted 86% of the service events while patient admissions and therapy constituted 76% of the costs. The vast majority of overall costs occurred just before, or within, three months of diagnosis. The median nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer case costs were $10,928 (range $9,234 to $11,047) and $15,350 (range $13,033 to $21,436), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results agree with the literature that the majority of lung cancer case costs are realized around the date of diagnosis (ie, early phase). The present study illustrates Canadian health care system lung cancer case costs based on actual care received versus hypothetical care algorithms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".