Adherence to guideline‐recommended process measures for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in Ontario: Impact of surgeon and hospital volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to measure adherence rates to guideline-recommended process measures in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: A total of 5720 patients who underwent surgery for head and neck cancer in Ontario between 1993 and 2010 were identified from administrative databases. Adherence to 4 guideline-recommended processes of care was measured and stratified by hospital and physician case volume. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients received preoperative head and neck imaging, 83% received preoperative chest imaging, 58% received preoperative multidisciplinary consultation, and 77% had appropriate follow-up visits. Higher surgeon and hospital surgical volumes were associated with higher adherence rates. CONCLUSION: Adherence rates to guideline-recommended processes of care in the surgical management of patients with head and neck cancer in Ontario were moderate and should be improved. Although adherence rates seem proportional to surgical volume, even the highest volume centers have room to improve. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1987-E1992, 2016.
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".