MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867443899 · doi:10.3747/co.22.2482

The Optimal Organization of Gynecologic Oncology Services: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W1867443899 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael Fung‐Kee‐Fung, Erin B. Kennedy, Jim Biagi, Terence J. Colgan, David D’Souza, Laurie Elit, Amber Hunter, Jonathan C. Irish, Robin S. McLeod, Barry P. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreMount Sinai HospitalCancer Care OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGynecologic oncologyOvarian cancerMEDLINEGuidelineMultidisciplinary approachSurgical oncologyInternal medicineOncologyEndometrial cancerFamily medicineGynecologyCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A system-level organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology was identified by a provincial cancer agency as a key priority based on input from stakeholders, data showing more limited availability of multidisciplinary or specialist care in lower-volume than in higher-volume hospitals in the relevant jurisdiction, and variable rates of staging for ovarian and endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review assessed the relationship of the organization of gynecologic oncology services with patient survival and surgical outcomes. The electronic databases medline and embase (ovid: 1996 through 9 January 2015) were searched using terms related to gynecologic malignancies combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. Outcomes of interest included overall or disease-specific survival, short-term survival, adequate staging, and degree of cytoreduction or optimal cytoreduction (or both) for ovarian cancer patients by hospital or physician type, and rate of discrepancy in initial diagnoses and intraoperative consultation between non-specialist pathologists and gyne-oncology-specialist pathologists. RESULTS: One systematic review and sixteen additional primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base as a whole was judged to be of lower quality; however, a trend toward improved outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology was found, particularly with respect to the gynecologic oncology care of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology services can be attributed to a number of factors, including access to specialist care and multidisciplinary team management. Findings of this systematic review should be used with caution because of the limitations of the evidence base; however, an expert consensus process made it possible to create recommendations for implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207