MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300209296 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2016.24537

Patient Satisfaction with Wait-Times for Breast Cancer Surgery in Newfoundland and Labrador

2016· article· en· W2300209296 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Maria Mathews, Dana Ryan, Vereesh Gadag, Roy West

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerChartPatient satisfactionGeneral surgeryCancerBreast surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do shorter waits for breast cancer surgery lead to greater wait-related patient satisfaction? Using survey and cancer clinic chart data of 99 patients with breast cancer from Newfoundland and Labrador, we found that median wait-time from first visit to a surgeon to surgery was 22.0 days and 87% were satisfied with their wait-time. Wait-related satisfaction was not associated with the length of wait but rather with the stage, severity of treatment, wait-time for a diagnosis and satisfaction with diagnosis-related wait. These findings highlight the importance of an early and timely diagnosis in patients' perceptions of breast cancer care wait-times.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207