Costs of Cervical Cancer Treatment: Population-Based Estimates from Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the present study were to estimate the overall and specific medical care costs associated with cervical cancer in the first 5 years after diagnosis in Ontario. METHODS: Incident cases of invasive cervical cancer during 2007-2010 were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to administrative databases held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Mean costs in 2010 Canadian dollars were estimated using the arithmetic mean and estimators that adjust for censored data. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients in the study cohort (779 cases) was 49.3 years. The mean overall medical care cost was $39,187 [standard error (se): $1,327] in the 1st year after diagnosis. Costs in year 1 ranged from $34,648 (se: $1,275) for those who survived at least 1 year to $69,142 (se: $4,818) for those who died from cervical cancer within 1 year. At 5 years after diagnosis, the mean overall unadjusted cost was $63,131 (se: $3,131), and the cost adjusted for censoring was $68,745 (se: $2,963). Inpatient hospitalizations and cancer-related care were the two largest components of cancer treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the estimated mean costs that did not account for censoring were consistently undervalued, highlighting the importance of estimates based on censoring-adjusted costs in cervical cancer. Our results are reliable for estimating the economic burden of cervical cancer and the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention strategies.
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) | 0.004 | 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".