MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ascertaining cancer survivors in Ontario using the Ontario Cancer Registry and administrative data.

2018· article· en· W2805080829 on OpenAlexaffabout
Munaza Chaudhry, Catherine Chan, Sue Su-Myat, Stefanie De Rossi, Victoria Zwicker, Jillian Ross, Jonathan Sussman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer registryCohortSurvivorship curveConcordanceCancerRadiation therapyPopulationCumulative incidenceInternal medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

34 Background: The number of cancer survivors in Ontario has grown rapidly due to increasing incidence and advances in screening, diagnostic technologies and treatment. However, there is a lack of information to plan, monitor and improve follow-up care. Using the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and health services administrative data, we developed a cohort of cancer survivors from which we could determine demographic characteristics, where follow-up care was received, and concordance with guideline-recommended surveillance testing. Methods: Individuals were included in the cumulative survivor cohort if they had at least one diagnosed incident malignant cancer from 1964 to 2017 in the OCR. Patients were considered survivors upon completion of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy). Treatment was ascertained from clinical and administrative data using a data-driven approach combined with clinical expert input. In the absence of recurrence data, a treatment-based proxy was developed. Stage IV and complex malignant haematology cancer patients were excluded. We did a cross-sectional analysis of survivors in the cohort in 2016. We produced descriptive statistics and also determined the year of survivorship. For those who were in their first to fifth year of survival, we calculated the proportion who saw a medical or radiation oncologist (MO/RO) in 2016 stratified by year of survivorship. Results: As of December 31, 2016, there were 414,134 cancer survivors in the cohort, roughly 3% of the Ontario population. Ninety-three percent of survivors had a single primary cancer diagnosis, 66% were aged 65 or older, and slightly more were female (55%). Also, 22% had been diagnosed with breast cancer, 22% with prostate, and 12% with colorectal cancer. For those in their first year of survivorship, roughly 50% saw a MO/RO; whereas, for those in their fifth year of survival, 36% had seen a MO and 27% had seen an RO. Conclusions: The development of a cancer survivor cohort has enabled us to produce timely data on a previously unidentified patient population. Linking this cohort with existing administrative data will enable further examination of visit trajectories as well as cancer and non-cancer health outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.658
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→