MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891082052 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.782

Using family physician Electronic Medical Record data to measure the pathways of cancer care

2018· article· en· W2891082052 on OpenAlexaff
Liisa Jaakkimainen, Noah Crampton, Virgiliu Bogdan Pinzaru, Lisa DelGiudice, Karen Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerLung cancerSpecialtyCancerMedical recordInternal medicineDiseaseOncologyFamily medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 IntroductionGaps in care have been identified along the disease pathway for specific cancers. However, no real-world data exists to identify wait times along these cancer pathways. Secondary use of family physician (FP) electronic medical record data (EMR) can augment existing health administrative data in measuring steps in the care pathways.
 Objectives and ApproachWe used FP EMR data to identify care pathways for lung cancer and breast cancer patients from the description of symptoms, to the initiation of investigations, referrals to specialty care and the receipt of specific treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment). Data from the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) was used to identify a cohort of lung cancer and breast cancer patients. Data abstractors examined the FP EMR notes to identify pre-diagnostic symptoms, pre-diagnostic radiological test, biopsy results, oncology and surgical specialist referrals and post-diagnostic surgical and oncological consultations.
 ResultsTo date, abstractors have reviewed the FP EMR notes for 300 lung cancer patient and 1200 breast cancer patients. Abstractors identified an index date where there was documentation of the first abnormal test result and/or a FP progress note documenting a “suspicious” or “concerning” sign or symptom. For both lung cancer and breast cancer patients, a pre-diagnostic index date was identified in 88.5% of FP EMR notes. For lung cancer patients 66.7% based were based on abnormal chest x-rays and for breast cancer patients 81.1% were based on abnormal mammograms. Pre-diagnostic symptoms were identified in 62.1% of FP EMR notes and 81.6% had post-diagnostic consultation notes. Wait times from the index date to seeing an oncological specialist were less than four weeks for all patients.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsWe are able to use information from FP EMRs linked to health administrative data to identify pre-diagnostic care received by patients prior to their cancer diagnosis. This information can be used to identify care gaps and measure wait times in receiving cancer care from a patient’s perspective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0030.001
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207