Uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer in Canada from 2004/05 to 2014/15: a descriptive analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Evidence from randomized controlled trials published since 2004 shows that elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer improves short-term postoperative outcomes with equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open colectomy. The objective of this study was to examine the uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy in Canada and compare its use among Canadian provinces. <h3>Methods:</h3> In this descriptive analysis, we identified from hospital discharge abstracts all patients in the Canadian provinces (except Quebec) who underwent elective colectomy for colon cancer between 2004/05 and 2014/15. We compared temporal changes in the proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy among provinces using logistic regression. <h3>Results:</h3> Of 63 504 patients who underwent elective colectomy between 2004/05 and 2014/15, 19 691 (31.0%) underwent laparoscopic colectomy. The annual proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy increased from 9.2% in 2004/05 to 51.5% in 2014/15 (mean annual percent increase 4.2%). There were significant differences between provinces in the overall proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (<i>p</i> < 0.001), ranging from 7.6% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 36.9% in Ontario. By 2014/15, most colectomy procedures were performed laparoscopically in 3 provinces; British Columbia (60.2%), Ontario (59.4%) and Alberta (53.1%). In addition to year and province, urban residence, younger age, female sex, fewer medical comorbidities, high surgeon volume, high hospital volume and right-sided tumours were significantly associated with increased likelihood of laparoscopic colectomy. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Although the use of laparoscopic colectomy increased rapidly between 2004/05 and 2014/15 in Canada, substantial interprovincial variation exists. Further knowledge-translation strategies are needed to ensure equal access to laparoscopic colectomy for all Canadians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".