MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Improving radiotherapy quality of care: Examining practice patterns in regional centers.

2018· article· en· W2892442860 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Stosky, Jackson Wu, Alysa Fairchild, Marc Kerba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careCancerLife expectancyQuality of life (healthcare)Radiation therapyMedical prescriptionProspective cohort studyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

53 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) is a resource intensive cancer treatment. Benefits may take weeks to realize, whereas side effects are more immediate. RT is commonly delivered with palliative intent often near the end of life (EOL). In patients with limited life expectancy, single fractions (sf) may substitute for multi-fraction (mf) treatments. Objectives were to document RT courses delivered to patients with cancer at EOL, with the goal of informing treatment practices, developing a clinical decision-making tool and reducing potentially futile treatment and side effects for patients. Methods: Cancer Registry data was examined with ethics approval. Patient and prospective treatment data were collected and analyzed to determine the number of RT courses starting within 90 days of death (EOL) among those with cancer diagnoses who died between January 1, 2016, and July 31, 2017. Data was stratified by demographics, disease factors, RT center and prescription factors. Results are reported in aggregate and explored using tests of association (Stata 11.1). Results: Among 1874 patients who died, 2448 RT courses were identified across 4 RT centers. Of those prescribed RT at the EOL, there were 442 sf courses 100% completed, 1267 2-5 fraction courses 90% completed, 552 6-10 fraction courses 77% completed, and 187 11+ fraction courses 57% completed. Among patients prescribed RT 14 days prior to death, 24% had been prescribed a sf of RT compared to 18% of those within 90 days of death (Chi2 17.92, p < 0.001). Among patients prescribed RT 90 days prior to death, 25% of patients in tertiary Centre A were prescribed a sf compared to 13% of patients in tertiary Centre B (Chi2 121.90, p < 0.001). Patients were half as likely (RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.39, 0.56], p < 0.001) to complete a mf treatment within 14 days of their death as compared to within 90 days. Patients who had a diagnosis to death interval of under a year were less likely to complete RT than those over a year (RR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79, 0.85], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Multi-fraction RT is often not completed prior to death. Treating RT center is associated with differences in prescribing patterns. Better understanding of factors influencing RT practice patterns may lessen the proportion of potentially futile RT.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 Oncology→Same topicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy→French-language works237,207→