MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cancer care during COVID-19: Data from 157 patient organizations.

2021· article· en· W3170320287 on OpenAlexaff
Lorna Warwick, Elisabeth Baugh, Fátima Cardoso, Rachel Giles, Alex Filicevas, J. Fox, Kathy Oliver, Frances Reid, Jenny Isaacson, Andrew Spiegel, Roberta Ventura, Nicole Sheahan, Clara Mackay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsOvarian Cancer Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerPandemicHealth careTelemedicineFamily medicineNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18564 Background: Representatives from 8 global cancer coalitions/alliances, representing 650 cancer patient groups and the interests of over 14 million patients have come together during the pandemic to review and evaluate the patient-perspective impact. Cancer services have faced challenges as a result of COVID-19, including suspension of screening and diagnostic services; delays in diagnosis leading to higher mortality rates; cancellation/deferral of life-saving treatments; changes in treatment regimens and suspension of vital research. For organisations that provide support to cancer patients, declining income, the need to reduce staff and move to virtual working practices has put extra strain while demand for support due to the pandemic has increased. Methods: 5 coalitions surveyed their member organisations. A number of coalitions consulted their members by individual surveys or consultations. Results: A survey of 157 organisations representing advanced breast, bladder, lymphoma, ovarian and pancreatic cancer patient groups from 56 countries found that 57% experienced an average increase of 44% in patient calls and emails. 45% reported that their future viability may be under threat because of the impact of COVID-19 on income. Examples of good practice were reported where healthcare systems have acted to protect patients and cancer services. These include the introduction of COVID-free centres, separation of cancer patients from those who may have COVID-19, and the introduction of virtual and telemedicine services. Organisations have also introduced new ways of working including virtual psychological support services and app-based support groups. These best practices should form part of a global plan of action for future health crisis. Conclusions: Collaboration between patient advocacy organisations, governments and health services is needed to ensure the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic is regained. Action is required to restore cancer services safely and effectively without delay. Additional resources for organisations that support cancer patients are required to ensure that they continue to provide vital services. Finally, a global plan of action for cancer is required to meet the challenges of any future health crisis.

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)0.030
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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