MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations between county-level general surgeon (GS) and gastroenterologist (GA) density and outcomes for hepatobiliary cancer (HBC).

2012· article· en· W2560088324 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor C. Tsang, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)DemographyLogistic regressionSocioeconomic statusMortality rateCancerBayesian multivariate linear regressionInternal medicineLinear regressionSurgeryPopulationEnvironmental healthStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

292 Background: Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for early, localized HBC. Prior studies consistently show an association between procedure volumes and cancer outcomes, but the impact of surgeon and physician density is unclear. Our aims were to 1) examine the effects of GS and GA density on HBC mortality and 2) compare the relative importance of GS versus GA density on HBC outcomes. Methods: Using county-level data from the Area Resource File, US Census, and National Cancer Institute, we developed both multivariate linear and logistic regression models to determine the effect of GS and GA density on overall HBC mortality between 2002 and 2006, while controlling for cancer incidence, county demographics and socioeconomic factors. Results: In total, 793 counties were analyzed: mean HBC incidence and mortality were 5.89 and 5.34 per 100,000 persons, respectively; 77% were metropolitan; mean GS and GA densities were 10.6 and 3.5 per 100,000 people, respectively. When compared to counties with no GS, those with at least one had a statistically significant decrease in HBC-specific mortality (beta coefficient -.115; p=.001). In contrast, when compared to counties with no GA, those with at least one showed a trend towards lower mortality (beta coefficient -.0677; p=.065). Increasing the county-level density of GS and GA improved outcomes, but increases beyond 10 GS or 4 GA per 100,000 people did not continue to result in significant reductions in HBC mortality; rather, these showed an increase in HBC mortality. Conclusions: Reductions in HBC mortality are more strongly influenced by increasing GS than GA density. There appears to be a ceiling effect at which point increasing GS and GA density does not appear to result in improvements in HBC outcomes. A strategy of allocating healthcare resources and distributing the workforce across counties will optimize outcomes at the population-level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207