MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2431861637 · doi:10.3747/co.23.2954

Integration of a Nurse Navigator into the Triage Process for Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Creating Systematic Improvements in Patient Care

2016· article· en· W2431861637 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kelly Zibrik, Janessa Laskin, Cheryl Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriagePopulationDisadvantagedBreast cancerCancerIntensive care medicineNursingMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurse navigation is a developing facet of oncology care. The concept of patient navigation was originally created in 1990 at the Harlem Hospital Center in New York City as a strategy to assist vulnerable and socially disadvantaged populations with timely access to breast cancer care. Since the mid-1990s, navigation programs have expanded to include many patient populations that require specialized management and prompt access to diagnostic and clinical resources. Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer is ideally suited for navigation to facilitate efficient assessment in this fragile patient population and to ensure timely results of molecular tests for first-line therapy with appropriately targeted agents. At the BC Cancer Agency, nurse navigator involvement with thoracic oncology triage has been demonstrated to increase the proportion of patients receiving systemic treatment, to shorten the time to delivery of systemic treatment, and to increase the rate of molecular testing and the number of patients with molecular testing results available at time of initial consultation. Insights gained through the start-up process are briefly discussed, and a framework for implementation at other institutions is outlined.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 head0.402
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207