MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139409324 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr043

Identifying population-level indicators to measure the quality of cancer care for women

2011· review· en· W2139409324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Lisa Barbera, Laurie Elit, Ans Abdul Razzaq, Refik Saskin, Naira Yeritsyan, Arlene S. Bierman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Quality (philosophy)CancerMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthComputer scienceData miningInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although there is interest in measuring the quality of cancer care, there has been limited effort to evaluate quality for specific subpopulations such as women or to examine differences in performance among women associated with sociodemographic characteristics. The objective of this study was to identify a comprehensive set of quality indicators for evaluation of the quality of cancer care received by women using administrative data. DESIGN: A conceptual measurement framework developed by the study investigators was used to guide literature review to identify existing quality indicators. The list of potential indicators from the literature was first reviewed by the study investigators with respect to importance and feasibility to determine a set of indicators to present to an expert panel who used a modified Delphi process to select indicators for inclusion using predetermined explicit criteria. SETTING: The Project for an Ontario Women's Health Evidence-Based Report Card. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of clinicians, researchers and administrators with expertise in cancer, quality of care and/or health services research. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Set of quality indicators evaluable from administrative data. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 427 indicators, of which 46 were rated as important and feasible by the study investigators. Following two rounds of ratings and an in-person meeting, the expert panel recommended 31 indicators for inclusion in the final set spanning the following areas: general indicators (three indicators), cancer screening (six), colorectal cancer (four), lung cancer (three), breast cancer (five), gynecologic cancers (five), and end-of-life care (five). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive set of 31 indicators was identified to evaluate the quality of cancer care received by women that also allows assessment of gender and socioeconomic disparities in cancer 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 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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.063 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Quality in Health CareSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207