Physician Supply and Breast Cancer Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study tested the hypothesis that physician supply thresholds are associated with breast cancer survival in Ontario. METHODS: The 5-year survival of 17,820 female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1995 and 1997 was surveilled until 2003 for all-cause mortality. Physician supply densities in 1991 and 2001 were computed for 49 Ontario regions. RESULTS: There were independent threshold effects for general practitioners (GP; 7.25 per 10,000) and obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYN; 6 per 100,000) at or above which women with breast cancer were more likely to survive for 5 years. The respective risk of living in areas undersupplied with OB/GYN and GP increased 30% to nearly 5-fold during the 1990s. Five-year survival tended to be lower in provincial areas outside of Toronto, which experienced GP (odds ratio, 0.83; 90% CI, 0.70-0.99) and OB/GYN (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) supply decreases. CONCLUSION: As they do in America, primary care physician supplies in Canada seem to matter in the effective provision of cancer care. Community resources such as health care service endowments, including physician supplies, may be particularly critical to the performance of health care systems such as Canada's, which aim to provide medically necessary care for all.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".