MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044618162 · doi:10.1258/1355819011927251

Could changes in clinical practice reduce waiting lists for radiotherapy?

2001· article· en· W2044618162 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Dixon, William J. Mackillop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyMedicineWorkloadBreast cancerClinical PracticeRadiation oncologyCancerSurgeryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe variation in the practice of radiation oncology among the nine cancer centres in Ontario, and to explore the impact of variations in the number of treatments prescribed per case on the overall demand for radiotherapy in the province. METHODS: Prospectively collected, electronic records of all courses of radiotherapy given at the nine radiotherapy centres in Ontario between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1997 were analysed to describe inter-centre variations in the number of radiation treatments (fractions) prescribed per case. The effect of the observed inter-centre variations in practice on the total provincial workload was modelled. RESULTS: During the two-year study, 672,292 fractions were administered as 44,096 courses of treatment. On average there were 63.6 high-energy treatment machines operating in the province over this period. The mean number of fractions per course for the province as a whole was 15.3, and ranged from 10.9 at centre D to 16.0 at centre F. The inter-centre variation in the number of fractions per course was higher when radiotherapy was used palliatively than curatively. The range of variation in the number of treatments per curative course was disease-specific; it was highest for breast cancer, and lowest for the gynaecological malignancies. If each clinical problem had been treated everywhere in the province as it was at the centre which treated it with the fewest treatments, 77,274 fewer radiation treatments each year would have been required to treat the same number of cases. This is equivalent to the capacity of 14.6 treatment machines, and exceeds the estimated shortfall in the current supply of radiotherapy in the province. Province-wide adoption of more parsimonious approaches to the use of palliative radiotherapy, or to the use of curative (adjuvant) radiotherapy in breast cancer, would produce dramatic decreases in the overall demand for radiotherapy machine time. In these particular situations, the literature indicates that shorter courses of treatment are just as effective, and as well tolerated, as longer courses. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the way that oncologists prescribe radiotherapy is an important determinant of overall radiotherapy machine workload. Modest changes in prescribing by radiation oncologists, even within the range of current practice in Ontario, and within the range of fractionation schemes that have been shown to produce optimal results, have the potential to reduce waiting lists for radiotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.482 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207