MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enrollment of esophago-gastric cancer patients in a clinical fast-track program and it’s affect on time to treatment and quality of life.

2018· article· en· W2789775411 on OpenAlexaff
Atuhani S. Burnett, Jack Mouhanna, José L. Ramírez-GarcíaLuna, Emma Lee, Julie Breau, Mary Diovisalvi, Thierry Alcindor, Jamil Asselh, Marie Vanhuyse, Joanne Alfieri, Marc David, Carmen Mueller, Jonathan Spicer, Jonathan Cools‐Lartigue, Lorenzo Ferri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaCancerQuality of life (healthcare)Esophageal cancerInternal medicineClinical endpointStage (stratigraphy)SurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

180 Background: Esophago-gastric cancers are aggressive malignancies requiring numerous investigations to plan complex multi-modal therapy. The path from initial diagnosis to treatment can be associated with a long delay. This delay and complex patient trajectory may impact quality of life. Given the poor prognosis and highly symptomatic nature of upper GI cancer, a clear and timely access to treatment of crucial importance. We sought to determine the impact of a newly implemented streamlined and structure interdisciplinary pathway for newly diagnosed esophageal and gastric cancer on access times to treatment and quality of life (QoL). Methods: A streamlined pathway for patients referred to a high volume Upper GI Cancer clinic was generated with input from physicians, nutritionists, specialized nurses, and social workers. New diagnosis of esophageal or gastric cancer from 2014-16 were enrolled in this program and consenting patients completed serial QoL questionnaires (ESAS) at baseline, pre-treatment, 1 month post treatment. Dysphagia (DS) was quantified on a 5 point scale. Time intervals (days) were evaluated at various points between diagnosis and start of treatment (diagnosis, CT imaging, first visit with upper GI program, start of treatment). Data presented as median(IQR), * p < 0.05. Results: Of the 251 patients with Upper GI cancer, 153 (61%) consented to participate including 140 esophageal/EGJ and 13 gastric cancer patients. Clinical stage distribution was 17.9% I, 30.7% II, 42.6% III, 8.7% IV. Of the 82 Esoph/EGJ patients with completed QoL questionnaires, 15 (18.3%) patients had severe dysphagia (DS = 3-4) and were prioritized for treatment. Patients with severe dysphagia had reduced time from index endoscopy to treatment (29 (16.3-39.3) vs 43 (32.8-68.0)days)* and first Upper GI clinic to treatment (15 (8.0-23.0) vs 25 (21.0-36.0)*. ESAS surveys showed increased QoL for both patients with and without dysphagia from baseline to pre-treatment indicating that simply entry into the streamlined program improved QoL. Conclusions: Structured interdisciplinary investigative and treatment programs for upper GI cancers can expedite time to treatment and improve QoL.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.368 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207