MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical characteristics and survival of lung cancer patients according to insurance status prior to and post implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

2018· article· en· W2892010000 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Reis Brandão Matutino, Allan Andresson Lima Pereira, Elizabeth Kornaga, Gilberto Lopes, D. Gwyn Bebb, Sunil Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidLung cancerPercentileHealth insuranceProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCancerDemographyHealth careFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18607 Background: Insurance status affects cancer stage at diagnosis, access to treatment and survival in the US. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented to expand access to health care. The aim of this study was to determine the association of insurance status with clinical characteristics, access to surgical treatment and survival among lung cancer pts pre and post-ACA. Methods: US SEER data was obtained for 18 to 64yo pts diagnosed with lung cancer from 2007 to 2012. Pts ≥65yo were excluded due to unreliable insurance status classification. To account for the introduction of the ACA in the US in 2010, data was analyzed by years 2007-2009 vs 2010-2012. OS was evaluated over a period of 26m and the 50th percentile was estimated. Pearson’s χ2 was used to assess significance of associations with insurance status and diagnosis year, and unadjusted associations were compared using the log-rank test. HRs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 84,549 pts were included. Median age was 58y. Black pts were more represented in the Medicaid (23.1%) and uninsured (21.1%) groups compared to the insured group (12.9%, P < 0.001). Insured pts were less likely to present with distant disease (50.4%) and more likely to receive surgery (27.7%) than pts in the Medicaid (55.3%; 16.7%) or uninsured groups (61.9%; 13.7%; P < 0.001). Median OS was longer in the insured (16m; p < 0.001) compared with uninsured (9m) or Medicaid (10m) groups. In an adjusted Cox regression, pts in the Medicaid and uninsured groups had worse OS relative to the insured group [HR = 1.28 (95%CI: 1.25-1.31); HR = 1.25 (95%CI: 1.22-1.30); P < 0.001]. When the groups pre and post-ACA were compared, the percentage of Medicaid pts increased in the post-ACA vs pre-ACA years (21.7 vs 18.7%; p < 0.0001) and median OS showed a significant improvement in the post-ACA-years (14m) than in the pre-ACA years (13m; p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Among lung cancer pts, those in the Medicaid or uninsured groups were more likely to present with advanced disease, less likely to receive cancer-directed surgery and had worse OS. The number of Medicaid pts increased and survival rates in all insurance groups improved in the years post-ACA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207