MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Canadian partnership for quality radiotherapy: A model for radiation treatment quality and safety.

2012· article· en· W2589357477 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey Cao, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette, Michael Brundage, Peter Dunscombe, John French, Caitlin Gillan, Margaret Keresteci, Michael Milosevic, Matthew Parliament, Jason Schella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Cancer CentreCanadian Partnership Against CancerKingston Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipQuality assuranceMedicineAccreditationGovernment (linguistics)AllianceQuality (philosophy)Public relationsMedical educationBusinessPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

266 Background: Innovative, overarching national, and international strategies for the assurance of safe and high quality radiation treatment (RT) are needed, given the rate of technologic innovation and shifts in traditional roles associated with RT planning and delivery. Methods: The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) was created as an interprofessional alliance of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO), Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP), Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists (CAMRT) and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC), aimed at developing and promoting coordinated national strategies for high quality and safe RT. Results: A steering committee of national leaders from each profession and content experts in RT quality and safety was created, with financial and strategic backing provided by the federal government through CPAC. The vision and strategy were communicated broadly to the RT treatment community and to other stakeholders provincially, nationally, and internationally. ‘Quality Assurance Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs’ was published online in April 2011 and empowered programs across the country to evaluate their internal procedures against these indicators. This document was downloaded over 875 times in the first 6 months, a measure of the demand and broad uptake in Canada and internationally. This early success has fostered other foci of activity, including engagement by the Canadian medical physics community around synthesis of detailed quality control guidelines for equipment, a dialogue about national incident reporting, and support from international partners in relation to collaborative programs. The goal is to incorporate RT quality and safety indicators into national accreditation programs for cancer care to assure long-term sustainability. Conclusions: CPQR has established a model for quality and safety that is fostering the evolution of a new national quality culture. This model is applicable to other jurisdictions, recognizing that a coordinated international approach to setting guidelines and standards will ultimately lead to higher quality and safer RT on a global scale.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0050.015
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207