Waiting time for breast cancer treatment in Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study had two research questions. First, what is the average waiting time between diagnosis and treatment for Alberta women with breast cancer relative to Canadian Society for Surgical Oncology (CSSO) recommendations? Second, does patient age, cancer stage, patient community size, and year of diagnosis have a significant relationship to waiting time? METHODS: The sample consisted of all Alberta women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2000. Waiting time was defined as number of days between definitive diagnosis and treatment initiation. Multiple regression examined the relative influence of the predictor variables on waiting time. RESULTS: There were 6,418 cases of breast cancer between 1997 and 2000. Mean waiting time was 20.2 days (SD 21.6) and median waiting time was 17 days. Longer waiting time was significantly associated with year of diagnosis (progressively longer from 1997 to 2000), patients younger than 70, and Stage 1 cancer. Waiting time increase from 1997 to 2000 appears to be due to increased demand for services without corresponding increases in resources. Less treatment delay for women older than 70 is due to more of these women being treated the same day they received their diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Only 44% of women had a waiting time of 14 days or less as recommended by the CSSO. The number of women who will have to wait longer than recommended for treatment will likely increase without a significant increase in oncological resources. The basis for differences in waiting times as a function of age needs to be further investigated to ensure equitable access to care.
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) | 0.000 | 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".