MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgical density and its effect on esophageal cancer (EC) and gastric (GC) mortality.

2011· article· en· W2590141003 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Yi Ho, Jasem Albarrak, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Socioeconomic statusPopulationDemographyMortality rateCancerEsophageal cancerCardiothoracic surgerySurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

16 Background: Surgical resection plays an integral role in the multimodality treatment of patients with EC or GC. The distribution of thoracic and general surgeons at the county level varies widely across the US. The impact of the allocation of these surgeons on cancer outcomes is unclear. Our aims were to 1) examine the effect of surgeon density on EC or GC mortality, 2) compare the relative roles of thoracic and general surgeons on EC and GC outcomes and 3) determine other county characteristics associated with cancer mortality. Methods: Using county-level data from the Area Resources File, U.S. Census and National Cancer Institute, we constructed regression models to explore the effect of thoracic and general surgeon density on EC and GC mortality, respectively. Multivariate analyses controlled for incidence rate, county demographics (population aged 65+, proportion eligible for Medicare, education attainment, metropolitan vs. rural), socioeconomic factors (median household income) and healthcare resources (number of general practitioners, number of hospital beds). Results: In total, 332 and 402 counties were identified for EC and GC, respectively: mean EC/GC incidence = 5.29/6.83; mean EC/GC mortality=4.70/3.92; 91% were metropolitan and 9% were rural; mean thoracic and general surgeon densities were 10 and 63 per 100,000 people, respectively. When compared to counties with no thoracic surgeons, those with at least 1 thoracic surgeon had reduced EC mortality (beta coefficient -0.031). For GC, counties with 1 or more general surgeons also had decreased number of deaths (beta coefficient -0.095) when compared with those without any surgeons. While increasing the density of surgeons beyond 10 only yielded minimal improvements in EC mortality, it resulted in significant further reductions in GC mortality. Other county characteristics, such as increased number of hospital beds and higher median household income, were correlated with improved outcomes. Conclusions: Mortality from GC appears to be more susceptible to the benefits of increased surgeon density. For EC, a strategic policy of allocating health resources and distributing the workforce across counties will be best able to optimize outcomes at the population-level. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207