MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995741906 · doi:10.3747/co.20.1342

Continued Success in Providing Timely Palliative Radiation Therapy at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program: A Review of 2008–2012

2013· review· en· W1995741906 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nemica Thavarajah, Albert Kai-Sun Wong, Liping Zhang, G. Bédard, Erin Wong, May Tsao, Cyril Danjoux, Elizabeth Barnes, Arjun Sahgal, Kristopher Dennis, L. Holden, Natalie Lauzon, Edward Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralRadiation therapyPalliative careDemographicsProstate cancerLung cancerGeneral surgeryCancerFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We set out to review the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (rrrp). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospective database of patients referred to the rrrp between August 1, 2008, and June 30, 2012, extracting patient demographics, case dispositions, and wait times in days from referral to consultation and from consultation to treatment. RESULTS: Of 2742 patients referred to the rrrp, 1458 (53%) were men, and 1284 (47%) were women. Median age was 64 years. The most prevalent primary cancer sites were lung (33%), breast (21%), and prostate (17%). The most common reasons for referral were bone metastases (53%) and brain metastases (21%). Palliative radiation therapy was given to 1890 patients. The median wait time from referral to consultation was 3 days. Among treated patients, 60% were treated on the day of their consultation, and 33%, within 1-6 days. CONCLUSIONS: The rrrp continues to deliver timely palliative radiation therapy to patients, comparable to earlier reviews. The continued success of the rrrp will remain a model for future rapid-access palliative radiation therapy clinics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207