Quality of surgical care of pancreatic cancer in a single payer North American health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Quality of surgical care of Canadian patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) is inadequately known. Primary aim of this study was to analyze the quality of care received by patients who underwent resections of PC in Nova Scotia over a 10-year period (2001-2011). Methods: All patients with PC (n. 1094) were identified using provincial cancer registries and only adult patients with resectable disease were included in the study (n. 109). Well established disease-specific quality indicators (QIs) were used as references. The proportion of patients who met those QIs was calculated. The average and 95 % confidence intervals of QIs were compared between patients treated in Nova Scotia and published references. Results: Surgical therapy was performed in 9.9 % of patients. Perioperative morbidity and mortality occurred in 25 % and 5 % of patients respectively. Overall survival was 57 % at 1 year, 18 % at 3 year and 9 % at 5 year. R1 resections occurred in 38 % of patients. When compared to published quality measures, patients in Nova Scotia had similar outcomes except for an inferior number of lymph nodes found in the surgical specimens (9 vs. 19; P<0.05). On the other hand, a significant proportion of patients did not fully meet several QIs linked to preoperative, surgical pathology and postoperative care. Conclusions: In Nova Scotia, the proportion of patients who underwent surgery for PC was lower than expected. Although perioperative morbidity, mortality and survival rates were comparable to published references, many did not meet established standard QIs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".