A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship Between Radiation Therapy Use and Travel Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To model and quantify the relationship between radiation therapy (RT) use and travel time to RT services. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Population-based registries and databases were used to identify both incident cancer patient and patients receiving RT within 1 year of diagnosis (RT1y) in British Columbia, Canada, between 1992 and 2011. The effects of age, gender, diagnosis year, income, prevailing wait time, and travel duration for RT on RT1y were assessed. Significant factors from univariate analyses were included in a multivariable logistic regression model. The shape of the travel time-RT1y curve was represented by generalized additive and segmented regression models. Analyses were conducted for breast, lung, and genitourinary cancer separately and for all cancer sites combined. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, gender, diagnosis year, income, and prevailing wait times, increasing travel time to the closest RT facility had a negative impact RT1y. The shape of the travel time-RT1y curve varied with cancer type. For breast cancer, the odds of RT1y were constant for the first 2 driving hours and decreased at 17% per hour thereafter. For lung cancer, the odds of RT1y decreased by 16% after 20 minutes and then decreased at 6% per hour. Genitourinary cancer RT1y was relatively independent of travel time. For all cancer sites combined, the odds of RT1y were constant within the first 2 driving hours and decreased at 7% per hour thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Travel time to receive RT has a different impact on RT1y for different tumor sites. The results provide evidence-based insights for the configuration of catchment areas for new and existing cancer centers providing RT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".