The medical care cost of childhood and adolescent cancer in Manitoba, 1990-1995.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to estimate the medical care costs of childhood and adolescent cancer in Manitoba, and to determine the elements that influence these costs. Retrospective chart reviews were done to obtain all the information. A total of 118 childhood (age 0-14 years) and 41 adolescent (age 15-19 years) cancer patients were included. For childhood cancer, in-patient hospitalizations accounted for 59% of the total cost, followed by bone marrow transplant (BMT) (9%), medications (8%), laboratory investigations (7%) and physician fees (7%). For adolescent cancer, in-patient hospitalization accounted for 37% of the total cost, followed by bone marrow transplant (BMT) (25%), physicians' fees (11%), medications (9%) and laboratory investigations (7%). Overall, the average cost for the first, second and third year following diagnosis was $50,902 (median 35,708), $13,939 (4,127) and $6,769 (2,565) respectively for childhood cancer patients, and $57,354 (24,192), $16,888 (3,267) and $3,436 (3,267) respectively for adolescent cancer patients. Further work involving long-term data linkage of medical charts with hospital and clinic financial billing codes is needed to provide more accurate estimates of the costs of childhood and adolescent cancer care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".