Assessing compliance with practice treatment guidelines by treatment centers and the reasons for noncompliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17506 Background: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is the chief advisor on cancer care to the government of Ontario, a province with a population of more than 12 million. One of the many roles of CCO is to develop evidence based consensus-derived treatment practice guidelines for all major cancer types, through its Program in Evidence-based Care (PEBC). To determine province-wide compliance with these guidelines, a pilot project assessed the proportion of patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) treated in concordance with the corresponding treatment guideline. Initial results are made available to the regional cancer centers (RCC) in the province and to the public through web based Cancer Systems Quality Index (CSQI, http://www.cancercare.on.ca/qualityindex2007/ ). Methods: The guideline (http://www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc2–29s.pdf) states that patients with resected stage 3 CC will have adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy within eight weeks of resection. Patients at each of 11 RCC who presented in 2007/2008 with stage III CC and the proportion treated according to the guidelines were identified. Individual charts of those patients who were not treated according to guideline were reviewed to determine the reason. Results: Across eight RCC with complete chart results to date 376 patients with stage 3 CC were identified, 244 (65%, range 47% to 72%) treated in concordance with the guideline, including 13% treated with capecitabine and 6% on clinical trials. The reasons for non-concordance of the 132 remaining cases were: age and co morbid conditions 48 (13%), patient choice 36 (10%), referred for treatment outside the RCC system 16 (4%), stage incorrect and other 32 (9%). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy treatment of stage III CC at the RCC across the Province of Ontario was concordant with the guideline in the majority of patients, and appropriate clinical reasons for non-compliance were identified. Data from all 11 RCC will be presented along with concordance within the eight-week time frame stated in the guideline . Refinement in province-wide data collection and interpretation will allow results from this pilot to be expanded to other PEBC practice guidelines for dissemination through the CSQI. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".