Patterns of care in the initial management of women with ovarian cancer in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To facilitate the planning of future resources for cancer services in Ontario, Cancer Care Ontario commissioned an evaluation of operative services delivered for vulvar cancer. METHODS: Women with an incident diagnosis of vulvar malignancy were identified from 1, April 2003 to 31 March, 2004 using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Record linkages were created to other provincial health databases such as the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. RESULTS: Vulvar cancers affected 148 women. Disease specific rates of cancer were higher in rural areas and in women in the lower income quintiles. No surgery occurred in 17.6% of women. Use of surgery did not appear to vary by urban/rural residence or LHIN. Ontario's 17 gynecologic oncologists performed 75% of the surgeries. Groin lymphadenectomy rate was 52.8%. Surgery was performed in the LHIN of residence for 41% of women. All women were assessed by CXR. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis occurred in 77%. MRIs were done infrequently. Radiation consults were preformed in half of the women with vulvar cancer but treatment was only delivered in half of those seen. Medical oncologists saw about 10% of women with gynecologic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be variations in incidence rates of vulvar cancer with disease being more frequent in rural areas. Subspecialty care from gynecologic oncologists was provided to 75% of women. Rates of lymphadenectomy as part of a surgical attempt occurred in 52.8% of women. These data would be enhanced with further information such as comorbidity, treatment intent (palliative/curative), histology, grade and stage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".