Timeliness of cancer care from diagnosis to treatment: a comparison between patients with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value in measuring specific time intervals across cancer sites to identify potentially important variation in the timeliness of cancer care that may inform needed changes and/or improvements in coordination of care. DESIGN: Retrospective population-level study. Demographic and treatment information were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Date of oncologist-consult was obtained from cancer medical records. SETTING: Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All patients diagnosed in 2005 with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer who were residents of Alberta, Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Number of days from diagnosis to first treatment by treatment modality and cancer site, (ii) number of days from surgery to post-surgery consultation and subsequent treatment and (iii) relationship between clinical and demographic factors and the cancer-specific provincial median time for outcome measures (i) and (ii). RESULTS: Time from diagnosis to surgery, if first treatment, was ∼4 months for lung cancer compared with 1-2 months for breast and colorectal cancers. Factors associated with this time interval for breast and colorectal cancers was stage at diagnosis but was region of residence for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Important variation within and across cancer sites identified in the care intervals evaluated in this study provides relevant information to inform local areas for improvement. Comparisons of these intervals across healthcare systems may also provide insights into strengths of different models for coordinating 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) | 0.001 | 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".