MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591446975 · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.34.7_suppl.2

Assessing the quality of chemotherapy in an episode-based funding model in Ontario.

2016· article· en· W2591446975 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leonard Kaizer, Vicky Simanovski, Huma Tariq, C. Lalonde, Irene Blais, William K. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenAnthracyclineAdjuvantInternal medicineAdjuvant therapyChemotherapyCancerOncologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 Background: On April 1, 2014, the delivery of systemic treatment in Ontario transitioned to an episode-based funding model, which provides bundled payments for a full course of therapy delivered with adjuvant/curative intent and a monthly bundled payment for palliative intent. Disease Site Teams have defined treatment options and “best practice” for each funded adjuvant/curative regimen. Methods: The utilization of treatment according to disease and intent was analyzed for 35 systemic treatment facilities in Ontario, comparing actual practice (AP) with “best practice” (BP) (dose/schedule/cycle number), for common adjuvant/curative regimens. Variation in the choice of chemotherapy regimen was also reviewed. Results: Cases were included if they started a new course of adjuvant/curative therapy after January 1, 2014, and completed their treatment before July 31, 2015 (17,341 cases). For all disease sites and facilities, AP was equal to BP in 34.6% of cases, AP < BP in 57.5%, and AP > BP in 7.8% (Table). There was significant variation by disease site and facility. As a specific example, 1,368 courses of adjuvant mFOLFOX were completed for colorectal cancer: AP = BP (12 cycles) in 34% (range 7-70%), AP < BP in 66% (range 30-93%), and AP > BP in 1% (range 0-4%). Variation in choice of adjuvant regimen for breast cancer was also observed. Provincially, 21.5% of patients received non-anthracycline containing therapy, but the range in the 20 largest volume centers was 0% to 39.8%. Conclusions: With the administration of potentially curative therapy, it might be assumed that BP would be administered in the majority of cases. However, initial results demonstrate significant variation in practice in an episode based funding model. There is a need to understand the reasons for this variation and to identify potential opportunities to drive efficiency and to increase standardization by engaging clinical experts and practitioners. [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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.089 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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