Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) designates cancer centers as regional centers of excellence in research and patient care. Although these centers often advertise their superior outcomes, their relative performance has not been examined empirically. In the current study, the authors assessed whether patients at NCI cancer centers compared with patients at control hospitals had lower mortality rates after major cancer surgery. METHODS: Using the national Medicare database (1994-1999), the authors assessed surgical mortality and late survival rates for 63,860 elderly patients undergoing resection for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, or colon carcinoma. For assessing performance, patients treated at the 51 NCI cancer centers were compared with patients from 51 control hospitals with the highest volumes for each procedure. Mortality rates (surgical and 5-year rates) were adjusted for patient characteristics and residual differences in procedure volume. RESULTS: NCI cancer centers had lower adjusted surgical mortality rates than control hospitals for 4 of the 6 procedures, including colectomy (5.4% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.026), pulmonary resection (6.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.010), gastrectomy (8.0% vs. 12.2%; P < 0.001), and esophagectomy (7.9% vs. 10.9%; P = 0.027). Nonsignificant trends toward lower adjusted operative mortality rates at NCI cancer centers were also observed for cystectomy and pancreatic resection. Among patients surviving surgery, however, there were no important differences in subsequent 5-year mortality rates between NCI cancer centers and control hospitals for any of the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For many cancer procedures, patients undergoing surgery at NCI-designated cancer centers had lower surgical mortality rates than those treated at comparably high-volume hospitals, but similar long-term survival rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".