Concordance with the ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
170 Background: In 2012, ASCO released a Provisional Clinical Opinion for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the need for integration of palliative care services concurrent with standard treatment from the time of diagnosis. To understand if this recommendation is being followed in Ontario, provincial administrative data was used to explore concordance. Methods: Various aspects of concordance were considered including: whether and when in the treatment trajectory patients received palliative care, and how much care was received. For Phase 1 of the analysis, a provincial database of outpatient cancer care was used to identify services received within Ontario’s regional cancer centers (RCCs) and select partner hospitals. The Ontario Cancer Registry and Staging databases were used to identify the patient cohort. The cohort included patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Results: Phase 1 results indicate that 41% of patients received palliative and/or psychosocial oncology care at the RCC or partner hospital after diagnosis. Those receiving palliative care first received services an average of 148 days after diagnosis. See Table below for detailed results. Conclusions: A growing body of literature has identified the benefits of concurrent palliative care. Knowing whether these services are being provided for the NSCLC population is a promising start to understanding and improving the delivery of palliative care in Ontario. Initial results suggest that there is a need for quality improvement in this area. Future phases will expand the analysis to include services received in additional settings such as hospitals and community. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".