MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The costs of managing patients with stage 3 and 4 colorectal cancer and the influence of patient factors at presentation

2004· article· en· W2246874359 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Rajan, Adele Noè, J.R. Penrod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerStage (stratigraphy)CancerMedical recordUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysisSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3656 Background: The costs of managing stage 3 and 4 colorectal cancer patients were determined and correlated with baseline patient characteristics. Methods: All patients presenting with stage 3 or 4 colorectal cancer at our institution between January 1986 and December 1993 were identified. Patients without pathologic confirmation or treated elsewhere for colorectal cancer were excluded. Ten patients were randomly selected from each of six categories based on disease site and stage, and resource utilization, clinical and demographic data were abstracted for each patient from hospital records. Unit costs obtained from a simultaneous fully allocated costing model and provincial billing data were attached to each resource. Average costs were determined, and univariate and multivariate regression analyses performed to estimate the influence on costs of baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: Of 573 patients identified, 340 had colon cancer, 111 rectosigmoid cancer, and 122 rectal cancer. Of the 60 patients in the sample, 54% were men, and mean ages at presentation were 67.9 years for men and 69.9 years for women. Overall survival was 39 months for stage 3 and 11 months for stage 4 patients. Patient management in each category was described. Mean total costs per patient in each category varied from $13,075 (Canadian) to $21,853. Most costs were incurred during the first (71.3%) and second (21.1%) years following presentation. The ten most important cost categories were: number of admission days, surgical and operating room charges, clinic visits, medical imaging, inpatient physician charges, radiotherapy, laboratory tests, intensive care, medical specialist consultations, and surgical procedures. A multivariate regression model predicting total costs based on gender, disease site, stage at presentation, age, and comorbidity explained 33% of the variation in costs between patients. Conclusions: The cost components for stage 3 and 4 colorectal cancer were identified, and a multivariate regression model showed that baseline patient characteristics could explain one-third of the variation in health care costs. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Pharmacia Hoffmann-La Roche

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207