MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasons for delay in time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for colon cancer (CC).

2013· article· en· W4240475139 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Warren Wasserman, Christopher M. Booth, Wilma Hopman, Abdullah Al Sharm, James Biagi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralCancerColorectal cancerMedical recordInternal medicineChemotherapySurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

548 Background: AC improves survival among patients with colon cancer. Two meta-analyses have demonstrated a decrease in survival with increasing time to AC (TTAC). In this study, we examined individual patient charts to determine reasons for delay in AC. Methods: Medical records of patients with CC who initiated AC Aug 2005-Nov 2010 at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario were reviewed to capture patient, disease, and treatment characteristics including: medical comorbidities, post-operative complications, whether AC was or was not ordered after initial consultation, and the reasons behind the decision. Dates of surgery, referral, consult, central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, and first cycle of AC were recorded. Patients were then categorized into Group 1-medical/surgical reason for delay (MSRD), defined as presence of post-operative complications or intercurrent medical illness, and Group 2–no MSRD. In Group 2, patients were further categorized as having a non-MSRD, defined as patients in whom AC was deferred at time of consultation due to patient preference and/or further investigations required, vs none. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with TTAC > 8 weeks (w). Results: For 171 patients: Mean age - 67; 52% male; 79% stage 3; IV AC – 80%, Oral AC – 20%. TTAC for all cases was 8.3 ± 2.3w. Mean intervals ± SD between surgery and TTAC in weeks were: surgery to referral 3.1 ± 2.0; referral to consult 2.5 ± 2.3; consult to oral AC 2.0 ± 2.1; for IV AC, consult to CVC 2.2 ± 1.3, and CVC to AC 0.7 ± 0.8. TTAC did not differ between patients with comorbidities (N= 89) and those without (N=82), p= 0.64, but was greater for patients in Group 1 (N=41 with MSRD) vs Group 2 (N = 130), p= 0.002. In Group 2, 43.8% (N=57) had TTAC > 8w while only 20% of cases (n=26) had a non-MSRD. Factors associated with TTAC>8w were MSRD [OR=5.6 (2.3-13.7), p = <0.001] and non-MSRD [OR=6.7 (2.3-19.5), p = <0.001]. Conclusions: Although medical/surgical complications are a strong predictor of delayed TTAC, this only applies to a small proportion of cases. Accordingly, in most patients TTAC>8w is unrelated to their post-operative medical condition and likely reflects health system and logistical issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207