MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801936696

Achieving World Class Outcomes in Cancer Treatment

2011· article· en· W2801936696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueMonographs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedicineWorld classDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The speaker for the OHE's 16th Annual Lecture was Sir Mike Richards, National Clinical Director for Cancer and End of Life Care in England's Department of Health. In his presentation, Prof Richards addressed five questions about the NHS achieving world class outcomes in cancer: (1) What would ‘world class’ look like (2) What measures are appropriate? (3) Where are we now? (4) Why are England's outcomes below the best? and (5) What do we need to do to close the gap? ‘World class’, according to Prof Richards, would mean that the overall burden of cancer in England would be as low as anywhere in the developed world, based on reliable international comparative data. Prof Richards identified five primary measures of outcome: incidence, mortality, survival rates, the health and wellbeing of survivors, and the survivor’s experience of care. Comparing these variables across countries is not straightforward; data are available only for the first three and those often are out of date. He also identified a dozen secondary measures, focusing on public health programmes, access to care and the quality of care. Data on ‘where we are now’ are dated, with the most recent international comparative data on incidence available for 2002 and data on mortality for 2004. Prof Richards points out, however, that what’s important is that the mortality rate from cancer in England is dropping ‘satisfactorily’ and is likely to meet the targets set. With respect to care and survival, Prof Richards points to substantial progress in prevention (e.g., in smoking cessation), screening, waiting times and the use of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. He sees considerable opportunity for improvement in the proportion of patients receiving curative treatments, the use of palliative treatment (particularly chemotherapy), and one-year survival rates. To help better gauge progress, efforts to establish benchmarks and reliable international comparisons are underway. No simple answer exists as to why England’s cancer outcomes are ‘below the best’. A new international benchmarking programme, involving countries with reliable data -- Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada and Australia – is intended in part to help determine why cancer survival rates differ. A great deal of indirect evidence, however, points to late diagnosis and a low curative intervention rate as the main factors underlying England’s lower survival rates. The first step in improving outcomes, according to Prof Richards, is to tackle low public awareness and/or negative beliefs about cancer to avoid late presentation, low uptake of screening and patients presenting as emergencies. To give a sense of the magnitude of the problem, he noted that a quarter of all patients with bowel cancer present as emergencies. Prof Richards also believes that GPs should have access to diagnostics and the necessary education and training to make full use of them. Finally, once diagnosed, cost-effective interventions such as laparoscopic surgery, high quality radiotherapy and systemic therapies should be widely available.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonographsSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207