MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315117618 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000038

Impact of Wait Times on Survival for Women With Uterine Cancer

2014· article· en· W2315117618 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. Elit, Erin O’Leary, Gregory R. Pond, Hsien Seow

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUterine cancerHysterectomyProportional hazards modelMultivariate analysisCancer registrySurvival rateCancerSurvival analysisStage (stratigraphy)GynecologyPopulationUnivariate analysisOncologyObstetricsInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer (without spread) have a 5-year survival rate of 96%; the rate drops to 16% if this cancer is diagnosed after the cancer has spread more distantly. It has been suggested that a timely hysterectomy after diagnosis of uterine cancer may improve survival, but there are no data to support this suggestion. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a longer wait time from diagnosis of uterine cancer to definitive surgery by hysterectomy is associated with poorer overall survival. Data were obtained from the Ontario Cancer Registry for all women who had a histopathologic diagnosis of uterine cancer followed by a hysterectomy between 2000 and 2009. Survival time was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the prognostic effect on survival of individual factors was evaluated using univariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Wait time was then added to the optimal multivariate model to evaluate whether it remained a significant variable after adjusting for all other factors. Nine thousand four hundred seventeen women were included in the final study population; 51.9% underwent surgery by a gynecologist, and 69.9% of the tumors were endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The 5-year overall survival rates for patients with wait times of 0.1 to 2, 2.1 to 6, 6.1 to 12, and more than 12 weeks were 71.1%, 81.8%, 79.5%, and 71.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that wait time was an independent prognostic variable for overall survival (P < 0.001) after adjusting for other specified variables. Wait times of 2 weeks or less were adversely prognostic for survival in the multivariate model, and women with wait times of more than 12 weeks had worse survival than those with wait times of 2.1 to 12.0 weeks. This study provides the first data from a large population-based cohort that demonstrates that delay from a diagnosis of uterine cancer to definitive surgery has a negative impact on overall survival.

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)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207