Physician attitudes and treatment patterns for pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgery appears to be an underutilized treatment option for pancreatic cancer. Nihilistic physician attitudes may be partly responsible. The study objectives were to analyze physician attitudes towards this disease and determine treatment patterns and outcomes including rates of surgical referral. METHODS: A survey was administered to 420 physicians in Manitoba to document general knowledge and attitudes. Population based administrative data was accessed for all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2004 and 2006 to examine treatment patterns and outcomes. RESULTS: 181 physicians responded to the survey. Most (73%) believed that surgical resection was worthwhile. Of the 413 Manitobans diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, only 11% underwent an attempt at surgical resection. There were 124 patients with stage I or II disease (i.e. potentially resectable), 85 of these patients received no treatment and 39% were not referred to a surgeon. These patients were older than those referred, but did not have more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Most physicians were insightfully aware of both the survival benefit and potential risks of surgical resection. However, some did overestimate the surgical mortality and underestimate the associated survival benefit. Although advanced age may justly account for some of the patients not receiving a referral, it is reasonable to assume that nihilistic physician attitudes is contributing to the apparent underutilization of surgery for pancreatic cancer. Efforts should be made to ensure that eligible patients are at least offered surgery as a potential treatment option.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".