MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138727105 · doi:10.1191/1078155201jp077oa

Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate as palliative therapy in cancer patients: A Canadian time and motion analysis

2001· article· en· W2138727105 on OpenAlexafffundabout
George Dranitsaris, Liana D. Castel, J.F. Baladi, Kevin A. Schulman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)Princess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals Canada
KeywordsZoledronic acidMedicineBisphosphonatePalliative careCancerOutpatient clinicInternal medicineOsteoporosisNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pamidronate was an important advance in the palliative treatment of patients with cancer. However, pamidronate must be infused over at least 2 hours in most patients. Zoledronic acid represents the next-generation bisphosphonate with a potential for improved efficacy in the palliative care setting. One important advantage of zoledronic acid is that it can be administered over a 15-minute infusion. To measure the overall efficiency of zoledronic acid as compared with pamidronate in the outpatient setting, a USA microcosting model was adapted to Canadian inputs. Time and motion data were collected from six patients being treated with zoledronic acid or pamidronate in three USA outpatient cancer clinics. Resource use and time impact on outpatient clinical staff were reanalyzed using Canadian cost estimates. This included the evaluation of fixed, variable, and labour costs obtained from Canadian sources. The manufacturer provided drug costs. The base case analysis assumed a 5300-ft2 out-patient chemotherapy clinic with eight infusion chairs designated for bisphosphonate administration in the province of Ontario. Mean treatment times in the original USA data collected were 2 hours, 52 minutes for pamidro-nate, and 1 hour, 6 minutes for zoledronic acid (a difference of 1 hour, 46 minutes). In the Canadian version of the microcosting model, the overall treatment cost was Can$673 for pamidronate and Can$682 for zoledronic acid (2001 Canadian dollars). Findings suggest that the shorter zoledronic acid infusion time would allow an additional 27 bisphosphonate patients to be treated per day. Alternatively, approximately one additional hour of chair time could be made available with each zoledonic acid infusion. Sensitivity analyses revealed that (a) the base case results were consistent when geographic region was varied, and (b) the shorter the infusion time for zoledronic acid relative to pamidronate, the lesser the cost difference and more patients could be treated daily. In conclusion, zoledronic acid may enhance the overall efficiency of outpatient chemotherapy clinics by reducing patient waiting time for bisphosphonate administration. These benefits would be obtained at an incremental cost of Can$9 per infusion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207