MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623923854 · doi:10.1002/hon.2439_189

ENGAGING ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO DETERMINE TIME TO DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF LYMPHOMA: A POPULATION BASED STUDY

2017· article· en· W2623923854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela Skrabek, M.D. Seftel, Oliver Bucher, Brenda Elias, Donna Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer registryReferralCumulative incidencePopulationIncidence (geometry)CohortDiagnosis codePediatricsCancerInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The province of Manitoba (MB) has a goal of reducing time from suspicion of cancer to treatment to a target of 60 days. Most patients with suspicious symptoms present to primary care and referral is after diagnosis is confirmed. Time from suspicion to diagnosis, (diagnostic delay [DD]), is hypothesized to be inadequately captured in cancer centre records and we aimed to refine a method to identify milestones starting from initial health care contact to obtain baseline measures of delay. Methods: This study examined DD, treatment delay (TD) and system delay (SD) in patients (>17) diagnosed with B-cell lymphomas from 2005 to 2010 using administrative data (MB Cancer Registry, MB Health billing and Hospital Abstract data) and chart review of a random subset of patients. A triangulated data approach, using an iterative consultative process, identified events likely related to subsequent lymphoma diagnosis and milestones. By linking to referring provider, date of high suspicion (HS) was identified and intervals were calculated for DD, TD and SD. SD from the chart review and the algorithm was compared with quintile regression. Cumulative incidence curves of SD were generated assessing patient factors (age, gender, lymphoma subtype, stage, socioeconomic status) and system factors (route of HS, treatment type, continuity of care, region of residence). The difference between variables was tested using the log rank test with significance defined as p value ≤ 0.05. Results: The cohort included 1295 patients (51.7% male), median age 65 (17–100) with aggressive NHL (43.6%), indolent NHL (34%), HL (12%) and other B lymphomas (10.4%). Chart review was only able to identify HS in 22/112 patients and underestimated SD by a median of 22 days. A total of 297/1295 (22.9%) of patients have never been treated, with 6.1% (79/1295) and 10.5% (136/1295) due to death within 1 and 3 months of diagnosis, and remaining 12.4% (161/1295) alive without treatment to date. Overall, only 14.8% of patients met the target for SD with median SD 128 days (90%ile 324 days), DD 85 days (90%ile 278 days) and TD 41 days (90%ile 83 days). Lymphoma subtype (see Figure 1), age (older patients longer delays, p = 0.009), stage (stage IV shorter SD, p < 0.0001), route of HS (ER first presentation, p < 0.0001), first treatment type (chemotherapy shorter than radiation, p = 0.02) influenced SD whereas gender, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and continuity of primary care did not. Figure 1 Cumulative Time from High Suspicion (HS) to Treatment by Lymphoma Category Keywords: B-cell lymphoma.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207