TREATMENT, HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION AND OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH GLIOBLASTOMA IN ONTARIO: A 10-YEAR COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumour in adults. Receipt of adjuvant therapies has been shown to exert a significant positive effect on patient survival. Little is known however about how changes in standards of care and healthcare system factors, such as access, affect real-world outcomes. In this study, we provide an overview of GBM in Ontario and examine elements of care, including treatment patterns and healthcare utilization, from 2010-2019. Using linked health- administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cohort study to examine the clinical and biological characteristics, treatment, and healthcare utilization patterns of adult GBM patients diagnosed between 2010-2019. The primary outcomes were enrollment in adjuvant chemoradiation treatment and 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). 5392 patients were diagnosed with GBM in Ontario from 2010-2019 (58% male, 42% female). The median age at diagnosis was 64. Receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation within one year of diagnosis increased from 51% in 2010 to 63% in 2019. 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year overall survival plateaued, ranging between 40-43%, 15-19%, and 5-7%, respectively. For patients above the age of 65, however, 1-year survival increased from 19% in 2010 to 26% in 2019. This Ontario- based study provides insight into the effect of practice evolution and healthcare utilization on the real-world overall survival of patients with GBM. Overall survival for most patients with glioblastoma has remained stagnant over the past decade. Changes intreatment standards and expansion of access to treating centres have been associated with prolonged survival in elderly glioblastoma patients.
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".