MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Implementation of lung cancer nurse coordinator significantly enhances patient care and delivery of appropriate chemotherapy.

2015· article· en· W2600840461 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelly Zibrik, Janessa Laskin, Cheryl Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralLung cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancerErlotinibRadiation therapyTriageFamily medicineEmergency medicineEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17708 Background: Involvement of nurse coordinators (NC) in oncology care is becoming increasingly common to facilitate more timely access to treatment for patients. The NC role in lung cancer at the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) involves developing algorithms for staging investigations, molecular tests and referrals. BC has a publicly funded health care system and reflex molecular testing is not available. The purpose was to evaluate referral practice, timelines and molecular testing for advanced NSCLC patients, pre and post implementation of a nurse triage coordinator. Methods: The study included patients referred to the BCCA – Vancouver Centre with advanced NSCLC in 2011 baseline and 2014 after the implementation of a NC. EGFR and ALK testing is available for stage IIIB/IV non squamous NSCLC. Referral patterns, systemic therapy/radiotherapy (XRT), timelines, molecular testing parameters were collected. Results: 408 patients were included: 212 in 2011, 196 in 2014. Medical oncology (MO) endpoints comparing 2011 to 2014: referral rates remained the same, the proportion who received systemic treatment increased 57% vs 69% (p = 0.05). Time from referral to MO consult 18 d vs 15.5 d (p = 0.11), referral to systemic therapy delivery was reduced 48 d vs 38 d (p = 0.016). Molecular testing: time from referral to EGFR result was reduced 34 d vs 20 d (p < 0.001), EGFR result available at MO consult increased 6% vs 37% (p < 0.001), rate of molecular testing increased 62% vs 91% (p < 0.001), EGFR mutation positive (19% vs 26% p = 0.26). For radiation oncology (RO) endpoints: RO consults 87% vs 80% (p = 0.05), the same proportion of patients received XRT (91% vs 87%). Time from referral to RO consult 10 d vs 8 d (p = 0.005), referral to XRT 18 d vs 11.5 d (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Implementation of a NC reduced wait times from referral to treatment for MO and RO. The proportion of patients who underwent molecular testing increased and the EGFR positivity rate remained the same, therefore more patients received appropriate first line targeted therapy. Participation of a nurse coordinator during triage activities suggests that physician, diagnostic and clinical resources are more correctly allocated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer→French-language works237,207→