MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The longitudinal impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer at a Canadian academic center: Interim analysis from a retrospective chart review.

2022· article· en· W4281951112 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angelo Rizzolo, Goulnar Kasymjanova, Carmela Pepe, Jennifer Friedmann, David Small, Colton Price-Gallagher, Jonathan Spicer, Christian Sirois, Magali Lecavalier‐Barsoum, Khalil Sultanem, Hangjun Wang, Alan Spatz, Victor Cohen, Jason Agulnik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortLung cancerRetrospective cohort studyCancerInterimCohort studyInternal medicineMedical diagnosisPediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18737 Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted clinical activities across many medical specialties. The care of lung cancer (LC) patients is no exception. Our group recently reported that the rate of new lung cancer diagnoses declined by 35% during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic (year 2020). The objective of the present study is to continue to evaluate changes in lung cancer diagnosis and management during 3rd and 4th waves of the pandemic (2021). Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study including patients diagnosed with lung cancer between March 1st 2019 and February 1st 2022 at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada. We compared 3 cohorts: Cohort 1: 2019 (pre-COVID). Cohort 2: 2020 (1st year of COVID). Cohort 3: 2021 (2nd year of COVID; reporting for 10 months of 2021). Results: A total of 388 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer throughout the three-year study: 130 in cohort 1, 103 in cohort 2 and 155 in cohort 3. Although there was a 35% decline of new lung cancer (LC) diagnoses observed in the 1st year of COVID, there was a 50% increase in diagnoses during the 2nd year comparing to the first year and a 19.2% increase compared to the pre-COVID year. Stage 4 LC diagnoses increased by 29% in 2021 compared to 2019 (88 cases vs 68 cases) and by 54% compared to 2020 (88 cases vs 57 cases). Early stage curative treatments (which had significantly changed in 2020, as the use of radiation therapy [RT] increased by 125% and surgery decreased by 38%), approached pre-pandemic levels in 2021. In 2021 we observed a decrease in RT and a significant increase in surgical resections. Analyses of wait time for initiation of treatment is still ongoing. Conclusions: The present study represents interim data in our ongoing effort to evaluate the dynamic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and delivery of LC care. The pattern of lung cancer treatment modalities for early stage disease appears to be recovering to pre-COVID rates. However, the significant decrease in lung cancer diagnoses during the first year of the pandemic has resulted in an increase in new diagnoses during the 2nd year at unfortunately more advanced stage of disease.[Table: see text]

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→