An evaluation of the breast cancer Well Follow-up Care Initiative using administrative databases: A new model of analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Background: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) implemented the Well Follow-up Care Initiative (WFCI) to transition low-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors from oncologist to primary care providers. The objective of this work was to compare both the health system resources utilized and their associated costs, among women in the WFCI (cases) and women who were not transitioned (controls). Methods: Cases were linked to provincial administrative databases and matched to a control group based on year of diagnosis, cancer stage, age, comorbidity, income, geographic area of residence, and prior health system use. Health system resource utilization (physician, hospitalization, diagnostics, medication, and homecare) was ascertained per group. The annual mean and median costs (CAD 2014) per patient were determined. Annualized incremental costs between cases and controls were estimated using generalized estimating equations, accounting for matched pairs. Results: Results are based on 2,324 cases and 2,324 controls (mean age 64.4 and 64.9 years, respectively). During an average of 2.5 years of follow-up since the transition date, there were significant differences between the two groups for mean annual visits per patient with a medical oncologist (0.4 vs. 1.3, p<0.001) and radiation oncologist (0.2 vs. 0.4, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in mean annual family physician visits per patient (7.4 vs. 7.9, p=0.082). The intervention group had fewer inpatient hospitalizations (75.6% vs. 79.9%) and cancer clinic visits (84.9% vs. 94.0%). While there was a higher number of mammograms for cases compared to controls, other diagnostic tests (bone scan, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and x-rays) were done less frequently. The model was associated with a 39.3% reduction in mean annual costs ($6,575 among cases and $10,832 among controls) and a 22.1% reduction in median annual costs ($2,261 among cases and $2,903 among controls). Conclusions: Transitioning BC survivors to primary care was associated with fewer health system resources and had a lower annual mean cost per patient than women who were not transitioned.
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 | 0.091 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".