Factors associated with the breast cancer diagnostic interval across five Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionA long breast cancer diagnostic process can affect patient anxiety and survival. Variations in the length of the diagnostic interval for similar patient presentations can indicate health system inequities and/or inefficiencies. Objectives and ApproachWe describe the breast cancer diagnostic interval across Canada and factors associated with its length. We studied breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2004/7 to 2010/11/12 in the Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Using administrative data, we created parallel population-based, provincial-level datasets and ran common analyses. The diagnostic interval was defined from the screening mammogram to the diagnosis for screen-led and from the first referral/test ordering date to the diagnosis for diagnostic-led patients. Stratified by these two diagnostic routes, we describe the variation in the interval across provinces and report on the province-specific associations between the diagnostic interval and: patient age, comorbid disease burden, socioeconomic status combined with rural residence, and continuity of primary care while controlling for cancer stage. ResultsThe median diagnostic interval varied by 6 days (29 to 35 days) across provinces. Screen-led patients were diagnosed more quickly (median 2-12 days quicker). The 90th percentile diagnostic interval was 84-126 days longer in diagnostic-led patients. In the diagnostic-led group, increasing comorbid burden was consistently associated with longer diagnostic intervals and being >70 was associated with a shorter interval at the 90th percentile in Manitoba and Ontario. There was no evidence of a clear rural or low socioeconomic status effect and patients without a primary care physician had shorter intervals. In the screen-led group, patients age 40-49 and those in the medium or low income rural areas waited longer for a diagnosis. Conclusion/ImplicationsDiagnostic wait times differ across Canada and are variably associated with comorbidity, age, area-level socioeconomic status and rural residence. These results point to practice and system-level effects that warrant further study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".