MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Identifying opportunities to improve quality of cancer care: An evaluation of the use of routine surveillance imaging scans in women with early breast cancer (EBC) treated in Ontario, Canada.

2013· article· en· W2591381806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Enright, Mohammed Ghannam, Lingsong Yun, Nathan Taback, Christopher M. Booth, Maureen Trudeau, Monika K. Krzyzanowska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCredit Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer registryMedical imagingPopulationLogistic regressionCancerRadiologyBreast cancerMedical recordComorbidityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

115 Background: Over use of routine surveillance imaging to detect recurrence in women with EBC was recently identified as one of the top five opportunities to improve the quality of cancer care by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. We undertook a population level assessment of the current practice of surveillance imaging in EBC women treated in Ontario Canada. Methods: Incident EBC patients diagnosed 01/07 – 12/09 in Ontario, Canada were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Patient records were linked deterministically to provincial health care databases to provide comprehensive medical follow-up. Basic (chest x-ray, abdominal x-ray and abdominal ultrasound) and advanced (computed tomography [CT] or bone scans) surveillance imaging scans completed during the first and second year of follow-up (starting 6 months after surgery or upon completion of chemotherapy) were identified. Logistic regression models were used to identify covariates associated with advanced surveillance imaging. Results: 16,981 EBC patients were included in the analysis of which 7,907(46.6%) received chemotherapy. In the first year of follow up care, 8,311 (48.9%) had at least 1 basic imaging test, while 4,916 (29.0%) had advanced imaging. This fell to 45.7% (basic) and 25.1% (advanced) in the second year of follow-up. Bone scans were the most common advanced imaging test (14.5%), followed by CT thorax (10.8%). On multivariable analysis age, stage, the use of chemotherapy and comorbidity were associated with increased use of advanced surveillance imaging (Table). Conclusions: Surveillance imaging was common in the first two years of follow-up for EBC patients. While appropriate for symptom driven investigation, the high rate of advanced imaging scans suggests an opportunity for improvement with the Ontario cancer system. [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 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)0.011
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→