Patient outcomes associated with cancer diagnosis through the emergency department: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many patients are initially diagnosed with a new suspected cancer through the emergency department (ED). The objective of this systematic review was to compare stage of cancer and survival of patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED to patients diagnosed elsewhere. METHODS: Electronic searches of Medline and EMBASE were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Studies comparing adult patients diagnosed with any type of cancer through the ED (ED diagnosis) to patients diagnosed elsewhere (non-ED diagnosis) were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data pertaining to patient outcomes were summarized and pooled using random-effects models and reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), where applicable. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. There was an increased risk of more advanced/later stage cancer (Stage III/IV or late-stage vs. earlier stage) among patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to a non-ED diagnosis of cancer (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.39-1.58). Survival was lower for patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to those diagnosed elsewhere (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer had more advanced/late stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse survival compared to patients diagnosed elsewhere. Future research examining patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".