Quality of surgical care of pancreatic cancer in a single payer North American health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold> <ns4:italic>Introduction:</ns4:italic> </ns4:bold> 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). </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold> <ns4:italic>Methods:</ns4:italic> </ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold> <ns4:italic>Results:</ns4:italic> </ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold> <ns4:italic>Conclusions:</ns4:italic> </ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".