Associations between clinical pathway concordance, cost, and survival outcomes for stage II colon cancer: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study measures patient's concordance between clinical reference pathways with survival or cost among a population-based cohort of colon cancer patients applying a continuous measure of concordance. The primary hypothesis is that a higher concordance score with the clinical pathway is significantly associated with longer survival or lower cost. The study informs whether patient's adherence to a defined clinical pathway is beneficial to patients' outcomes or health system. An externally determined clinical pathway for colon cancer was used to identify treatment nodes in colon cancer care. Using observational data up to 2019, the study generated a continuous measure of pathway concordance. The study measured whether incremental improvements in pathway concordance were associated with survival and treatment costs. Concordance between patients' reference pathways and their observed trajectories of care was highly statistically associated with survivorship [hazard ratio: 0.95 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.95-0.96)], showing that adherence to the clinical pathway was associated with a lower mortality rate. An increase in concordance was statistically significantly associated with a decrease in health system cost. When patients' care followed the clinical pathway, survival outcomes were better and total health system costs were lower in this cohort. This finding creates a compelling case for further research into understanding the barriers to pathway concordance and developing interventions to improve outcomes and help providers implement best practice care where appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".