A Comparison Between the Rates of Radiation Oncologist and Urologist Consultations in Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer in Northern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Recommendations from Cancer Care Ontario stress the importance of multidisciplinary care from radiologists and urologists for prostate cancer treatment. The present study sought to examine what percentage of patients had a consultation with a radiation oncologist before undergoing a radical prostatectomy in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2019. Methods and Materials: Administrative health care databases were used to analyze the number of consultations billed to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan from radiologists and urologists who treated men with a first prostate cancer diagnosis (n = 22,169). Results: In Ontario, 94.70% of Ontario Health Insurance Plan billings for patients with prostate cancer who had a prostatectomy within 1 year of a prostate cancer diagnosis were from urology, and 37.66% and 1.77% of billings were received from radiation oncology and medical oncology specialties, respectively. When sociodemographic variables were examined, having a lower neighborhood income (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.69; confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.76) and a rural residence (aOR, 0.72; CI, 0.65-0.79) were associated with lower odds of receiving a consultation from a radiation oncologist. When billings for consultations were examined geographically by region, Northeast Ontario (Local Health Integrated Network 13) had the lowest odds of receiving a radiation consultation compared with the rest of Ontario (aOR, 0.50; CI, 0.42-0.59). Conclusions: The results of this study show that differences in equitable access to multidisciplinary health care exist for men with a first prostate cancer diagnosis who reside in more northern and rural regions within Ontario, relative to the rest of the province. The reasons for these findings are likely multifactorial and may include factors such as patient treatment preference and distance/travel to receive treatment. However, as diagnosis year increased, so did the chances of receiving a radiation oncologist consultation, and this upward trend may reflect the implementation of Cancer Care Ontario guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".