Impact of Geographical Distance from Quaternary Treatment Center on Clinical Trial Participation, Intensive Induction Chemotherapy, and Outcomes in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is centralized in the Ontario single-payer public healthcare system, with intensive induction chemotherapy and clinical trials only offered at specialized cancer centers with large catchment areas. METHODS: We therefore conducted a retrospective single-center review of all AML patients assessed at a large specialized cancer center in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, 1,310 patients were assessed by our center for upfront AML therapy. The median distance was 33.1 km, with 29% of patients living more than 50 km away from the center. There was no significant difference in probability of intensive induction chemotherapy or clinical trial by distance from center, both in univariate and multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, cytogenetics and molecular testing, and performance status. There was no significant difference in overall survival by distance from center on univariate and multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, geographic distance from treatment center does not appear to impact choice of upfront therapy, participation in clinical trials, or clinical outcomes in this study of newly diagnosed patients with AML treated in a single-payer environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".