MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084829919 · doi:10.3747/co.27.6115

Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Wait Times in Specialized Diagnostic Units Compared with Usual Care: A Population-Based Study

2020· article· en· W3084829919 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Colleen Webber, Marlo Whitehead, Andrea Eisen, Claire Holloway, Patti A. Groome

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCancer Care OntarioBruyèreQueen's UniversityOttawa Hospital
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalBreast cancerStage (stratigraphy)CancerPopulationInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast assessment sites (bass) were developed to provide expedited and coordinated care for patients being evaluated for breast cancer (bca) in Ontario. We compared the diagnostic and treatment intervals for patients diagnosed at a bas and for those diagnosed through a usual care (uc) route. Methods: This population-based, cross-sectional study of patients diagnosed with bca in Ontario during 2007-2015 used linked administrative data. "Diagnostic interval" was the time from the earliest cancer-related health care encounter before diagnosis to diagnosis; "treatment interval" was the time from diagnosis to treatment. Diagnosis at a bas was determined from the patient's biopsy and mammography institutions. Interval lengths for the bas and uc groups were compared using multivariable quantile regression, stratified by detection method. Results: The diagnostic interval was shorter for patients who were bas-diagnosed than for those who were uc-diagnosed, with adjusted median differences of -4.0 days [95% confidence interval (ci): -3.2 days to -4.9 days] for symptomatic patients and -5.4 days (95% ci: -4.7 days to -6.1 days) for screen-detected patients. That association was modified by stage at diagnosis, with larger differences in patients with early-stage cancers. In contrast, the treatment interval was longer in patients who were bas-diagnosed than in those who were uc-diagnosed, with adjusted median differences of 4.2 days (95% ci: 3.8 days to 4.7 days) for symptomatic patients and 4.2 days (95% ci: 3.7 days to 4.8 days) for screen-detected patients. Conclusions: Diagnosis of bca through a bas was associated with a shorter diagnostic interval, but a longer treatment interval. Although efficiencies in the diagnostic interval might help to reduce distress experienced by patients, the longer treatment intervals for patients who are bas-diagnosed remain a cause for concern.

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)0.004
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 score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207