MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adjuvant therapy (AT) following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): Are patients from rural, remote areas disadvantaged?

2017· article· en· W2599844614 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly A. Bertens, John D. Massman, Samuel Garbus, Margaret T. Mandelson, Bruce Lin, Vincent J. Picozzi, Adnan Alseidi, Thomas Biehl, W. Scott Helton, Flavio G. Rocha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic cancerLogistic regressionInternal medicinePancreatectomyProportional hazards modelResidenceRural areaSocioeconomic statusDisadvantagedUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysisCancerOncologyDemographyPancreasPopulationEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

373 Background: AT with chemotherapy (CT) + radiation (RT) has been shown to improve PDAC survival over surgery alone. Although race and socioeconomic status can affect outcomes in PDAC, the impact of rural or remote residence on the delivery and effect of AT has not been studied. Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatectomy for PDAC were identified from the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2013. Individuals were classified as living in a metro area, urban/rural adjacent to metro area (URA), and urban/rural remote area (URR). Patients with less than 6 months follow-up were excluded. Logistic regression was performed to assess residence as a predictor of receiving AT. Overall survival (OS) as a function of inhabitance was estimated by the method of Kaplan and Meier and prognostic factors were identified by Cox regression. Results: A total of 32,521 individuals underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC. The majority of AT was delivered in academic research facilities in 56% of patients while only 29% of patients received both CT and RT. Univariate analysis demonstrated individuals in URR were less likely to receive CT (55% vs 58%, p < 0.01) but not RT (30% vs 31%, p < 0.261) and had a longer interval to AT (82 vs 75 days, p < 0.009) than those in metro areas. However on multivariate analysis URR inhabitance was no longer predictive of any form of AT (OR = 0.892, 95% CI: 0.792-1.006, p = 0.062). Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid insurance, uninsured status, and lower education were all predictive of decreased likelihood of receiving AT. Median OS was inferior for URR dwellers with pathologic T2 and T3 tumors compared to those in metro areas (19.8 vs. 24.4 months, p = 0.044 and 17.5 vs. 19.4 months, p < 0.001). Cox regression revealed URR location remained independently associated with poorer OS (HR 1.076, 95% CI: 1.008-1.149, p < 0.029). Conclusions: While living in a URR does not lead to reduced access to AT, it is associated with a worse OS in resected PDAC. This may be due to inadequate AT or other socioeconomic factors present in URR patients. Attention must be focused on improving oncologic care for groups susceptible to treatment disparities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→