MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Informatics and Ovarian Cancer Care

2009· book-chapter· en· W2504955952 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie Elit, Susan J. Bondy, Michael Fung‐Kee‐Fung, Prafull Ghatage, Tien Le, Barry P. Rosen, Bohdan Sadovy

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerDebulkingReferralLymphadenectomyInformaticsDiseaseCancerStage (stratigraphy)GynecologyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancer affects 2,400 women annually in Canada with a case fatality ratio of 0.70. There are several practice guidelines that indicate women with early stage ovarian cancer should be appropriately staged including removal of the gynecologic organs, multiple peritoneal biopsies, and pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy. In advanced disease, removing as much disease as possible and leaving less than a centimeter of residual disease in any one area improves overall duration of survival in cohort studies. Single institution studies and now work using administrative datasets in many high resource countries, show that women are not receiving adequate surgical staging or debulking. Cancer Care Ontario has used the RAND approach for defining quality indicators as a step for evaluating quality of care for several cancers including the management of women with ovarian cancer. The difficulty with current administrative datasets in the province is the lack of specific information such as stage, grade, histology, and size of residual disease. In this chapter, we will elaborate on the research that has brought ovarian cancer care to this juncture. We will highlight the importance of gathering information at the point of procedures and specifically in ovarian cancer at the point of the operation. Problems with the operative note and mechanisms to overcome these using templates, checklists, and synoptic notes will be reviewed. We will provide examples of pilot studies in Canada using synoptic operative notes in Cancer Care Alberta and Princess Margaret Hospital. We will also provide examples of computerized data entry across the spectrum of care from three projects in Ontario, Canada. Issues in building a disease site-specific electronic medical record will be discussed. The problems experienced in attempting to generalize such a system provincially will be addressed. We will elaborate on the potential benefits to the individual patient, the hospital and the province from such information system.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207