Travel distance and use of salvage palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvage palliative chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer has been associated with significant improvement in survival. However, not all patients receive all available therapies. Travel burden can affect patient access and use of future therapy. The present study aims to determine relationship between travel distance (TD) and salvage palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHOD: A patient cohort diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer during 2006-2010 in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada was studied. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess relationship between travel distance and subsequent line therapies. RESULTS: The median age of 264 eligible patients was 62 years [interquartile range (IQR): 53-72]. The patients who received salvage systemic therapy had a median distance to travel of 60.0 km (IQR: 4.7-144) compared with 88.1 km (IQR: 4.8-189) if they did not receive second- or third-line therapy (P=0.06). In multivariate analysis distance to the cancer center <100 km, odds ratio (OR) 1.69 (95% CI: 1.003-2.84), no metastasectomy, OR 1.89 (95% CI: 1.03-3.46), and absence of comorbid illness as per Charlson comorbid index, OR 1.45 (95% CI: 1.19-1.77) were correlated with the use of second- and subsequent line therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Our result revealed that travel distance to the cancer center greater than 100 km was associated less frequent use of second or subsequent line therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".