Referral and treatment rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer before and after publication of a clinical practice guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare referral and treatment rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer before and after publication of a clinical practice guideline. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative cohort study of 236 patients diagnosed with clinical stage >/= T2 bladder cancer in Alberta, Canada. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the time of diagnosis relative to the publication of the Alberta Genitourinary Oncology Group Clinical Practice Guideline on Bladder Cancer (CPG), which recommends cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive disease. The pre-CPG group included patients (n = 129) diagnosed prior to publication of the CPG (November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2004, inclusively). The post-CPG group included patients (n = 107) diagnosed after publication of the CPG (November 1, 2005 to October 31, 2007). There was an accrual blackout period of 6 months before and after the CPG release date. The primary analysis compared the two groups with respect to neoadjuvant chemotherapy referral rates, treatment-offered rates and treatment-administered rates. RESULTS: Referral to medical oncology regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy occurred in 2.3% and 23.4% of patients in the pre- and post-CPG groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 0.8% and 18.7% of patients in the pre- and post-CPG groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 0.8% and 14.0% of patients in the pre- and post-CPG groups, respectively (p < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant referral and treatment rates increased after publication of the CPG. However, overall referral and treatment rates remained low, which warrants additional exploration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".