MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wait time intervals for patients with prostate cancer in a multidisciplinary rapid diagnostic unit compared to a community-based referral pattern.

2013· article· en· W2589905095 on OpenAlexaff
Perakaa Sethukavalan, Liying Zhang, Vibhuti Jethava, Christiaan Stevens, Stan Flax, Roger Buckley, D. Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreHealth Sciences CentreNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralCohortProstate cancerCancerWatchful waitingCohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

183 Background: Wait times in cancer diagnosis and treatment are important measures of how quickly patients are getting access to care. Prolonged wait times may affect a cancer patient’s treatment outcome, prognosis and quality of life. A previous study conducted in 2003 found the median wait time from suspicion of prostate cancer to radiotherapy (RT) was 247 days. The purpose of this study was to capture wait time intervals for patients referred to and treated with radical RT at the Odette Cancer Centre, comparing patients diagnosed in a rapid diagnostic unit (RDU) versus the usual community referral process. Methods: Patients were screened during RT planning for their newly diagnosed, biopsy-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma. A semi-structured interview and chart abstraction was conducted in order to obtain the best estimation of key wait time milestones in the care pathway. Results: A total of 87 patients participated in the study: 44 RDU patients and 43 community patients. The median overall wait time interval from suspicion of prostate cancer to RT was 138 days for the RDU cohort and 183 days for the community cohort (p=0.046). There were statistically significant differences between the two cohorts, favouring the RDU cohort, for other key intervals, namely, suspicion to decision-to-treat (DTT; p=0.012), urologist to diagnosis (p=0.0094), diagnosis to DTT (p=0.018), and diagnosis to treatment (p=0.016). Among all patients, 25% perceived a delay in treatment and among those patients, 64% identified a systematic reason for the delay. There was no significant difference on the cause of delay between the RDU and community cohorts (p=0.86). Conclusions: Wait time intervals from suspicion to treatment are significantly shorter for prostate cancer patients in 2011-2 than in 2003 when diagnosed and referred in the community setting. A prostate-specific RDU further reduced wait time intervals supporting more multidisciplinary RDUs for common diseases. However, even in the RDU system, a minority of patients met provincial consensus-based wait time standards. Further work needs to be done to identify why delays are occurring and develop new processes to minimize delays.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207