A Comparative Analysis of Monthly Out-of-Pocket Costs for Patients with Breast Cancer as Compared with Other Common Cancers in Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monthly out-of-pocket costs (oopc) for Ontario patients with cancer have previously been reported, but little detail has been provided on differences based on tumour type. METHODS: A questionnaire administered in cancer clinics in the province of Ontario, with a mix of urban and rural patients, was analyzed using descriptive statistics and a regression analysis of cross-sectional data. The dependent variable was oopc (Canadian dollars), analyzed separately for total oopc (excluding imputed travel costs), and for each of the individual cost categories. RESULTS: Compared with colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients combined, breast cancer patients had statistically significantly higher total oopc ($393 vs. $149, p = 0.02), device costs ($142 vs. $12, p = 0.018), and family care costs ($38 vs. $3, p = 0.01). By contrast, they trended toward lower costs for travel ($225 vs. $426, p = 0.055) and had lower costs for parking ($32 vs. $53, p = 0.0198). Compared with non-breast cancer patients, patients with breast cancer reported a greater perceived financial burden (31% vs. 17% p = 0.0133). INTERPRETATION: These findings highlight that financial burden for cancer patients can vary by tumour type, and that patients with breast cancer may require a different mix of supportive services than do patients with other common tumour types. Supportive care programs related to financial burden should consider the likelihood and nature of financial burden when counselling breast cancer patients.
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.
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 it