MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810650147 · doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4620-2

Estimates and predictors of health care costs of esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study

2018· article· en· W2810650147 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hla‐Hla Thein, Nathaniel Jembere, Kednapa Thavorn, Kelvin Chan, Peter C. Coyte, Claire de Oliveira, Chin Hur, Craig C. Earle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreOttawa HospitalCanadian Partnership Against CancerUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineSurgical oncologyPopulationHealth careCohortIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyRadiation therapyCancerInternal medicineCancer registryAdenocarcinomaEmergency medicineOncologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) incidence is increasing rapidly. Esophageal cancer has the second lowest 5-year survival rate of people diagnosed with cancer in Canada. Given the poor survival and the potential for further increases in incidence, phase-specific cost estimates constitute an important input for economic evaluation of prevention, screening, and treatment interventions. The study aims to estimate phase-specific net direct medical costs of care attributable to EAC, costs stratified by cancer stage and treatment, and predictors of total net costs of care for EAC. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative health data from 2003 to 2011. The mean net costs of EAC care per 30 patient-days (2016 CAD) were estimated from the payer perspective using phase of care approach and generalized estimating equations. Predictors of net cost by phase of care were based on a generalized estimating equations model with a logarithmic link and gamma distribution adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: The mean net costs of EAC care per 30 patient-days were $1016 (95% CI, $955-$1078) in the initial phase, $669 (95% CI, $594-$743) in the continuing care phase, and $8678 (95% CI, $8217-$9139) in the terminal phase. Overall, stage IV at diagnosis and surgery plus radiotherapy for EAC incurred the highest cost, particularly in the terminal phase. Strong predictors of higher net costs were receipt of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, surgery plus chemotherapy, radiotherapy alone, surgery alone, and chemotherapy alone in the initial and continuing care phases, stage III-IV disease and patients diagnosed with EAC later in a calendar year (2007-2011) in the initial and terminal phases, comorbidity in the continuing care phase, and older age at diagnosis (70-74 years), and geographic region in the terminal phase. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of care vary by phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and type of treatment for EAC. These cost estimates provide information to guide future resource allocation decisions, and clinical and policy interventions to reduce the burden of EAC.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207