Building a Dream: Creating an Oncology Day/Evening Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for inpatient beds has reached and often exceeds capacity producing waiting lists for cancer care. There is a need to explore alternative approaches to oncology treatment. The Oncology Day/Evening Hospital (ODEH), originally envisioned in 1995 as a joint project between an ambulatory cancer centre and a large teaching hospital, is an important cancer treatment initiative offering extended hours of ambulatory oncology treatment on days, evenings, weekends and statutory holidays. A review of current inpatient treatment modalities revealed that many patients receiving inpatient therapy could be safely and effectively managed in the ambulatory setting if treatment regimens were modified and if ambulatory hours of operation were extended. Healthcare improvements expected were: appropriate movement of inpatient activity to the ambulatory setting; more opportunities for patient choice in treatment time thereby allowing for maintenance of normal living; better quality of life for patients through prevention of hospitalization; decrease in treatment waiting times; consolidation of patients into an ambulatory oncology treatment setting as opposed to utilization of adult medicine units; and more rational inpatient bed utilization with reduction of admissions and intra-treatment transfers. This article describes our experience in building a dream, the challenges and lessons learned in implementing a better way to deliver oncology care in an environment of rapid change and staff shortages.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".