Performance and cost of a renal cancer specialist multidisciplinary team meeting: Results from 1500 discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To report on the performance and cost of a surgeon-led renal cancer specialist multidisciplinary team meeting at a high-volume centre. Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of 1500 consecutive cases discussed from 2 September 2015 onwards. Performance was assessed as the number of cases where a clinical recommendation was made. The cost per meeting, discussion and patient were calculated using the mid-point of pay band attributable to the attendees (National Health Service pay scales 2015). Results: Over 34 meetings, 1500 discussions occurred (933 patients: 61.7% male; mean age 63.8). Above a one-quarter of discussions ( n = 399, 26.6%) were new referrals. Each patient’s case was discussed a mean of 1.6 times, the majority being discussed once ( n = 563, 60.3%). In 93.3% of discussions, a clinical recommendation was made. Only 100 discussions (6.7%) were deferred due to incomplete clinical information. A total of 11.1% ( n = 166) cases were discharged. The average costs were: £141,901 per year, £2729 per meeting, £62 per case discussed and £99 per patient. Conclusion: One discussion was usually sufficient to decide management; deferral was uncommon; and, given the low discharge rate, referrals seemed appropriate. The cost per patient was modest, and represented good value in providing a focused and shared clinical decision-making pathway for renal cancer patients. Level of evidence: 2C
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".