MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388725444 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5340

Breast cancer screening disparities between those with and without schizophrenia in Ontario, Canada: a cohort study

2023· article· en· W4388725444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Braden O’Neill, Tara Kiran, Michelle Greiver, Aïsha Lofters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerContext (archaeology)PopulationBreast cancer screeningRetrospective cohort studyMammographyCohortDemographyOdds ratioLogistic regressionCancerPediatricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Breast cancer screening with mammography is recommended in Ontario, Canada for averagerisk women starting at age 50. People with schizophrenia have lower breast cancer screening completion in other settings and higher mortality risk, but their screening rates are unknown in Ontario, Canada’s largest province with a population of approximately 14 million. In addition, it is unknown how different primary care payment models influence rates of breast cancer screening. Objective: To determine breast cancer screening completion among women with schizophrenia compared to women without schizophrenia, and to determine how different physician payment models (including fee-for-service, blended capitation, and team-based models) affect breast cancer screening. Study Design and Analysis: Retrospective case-cohort study. Outcomes assessed using logistic regression. Setting or Dataset: Administrative health data from ICES, including all interactions between residents of Ontario, Canada (population approximately 14 million) and the health system. Population Studied: Women who turned 50 in Ontario between January 2010 and December 2019. Cases were women with schizophrenia and controls were women without schizophrenia, matched 1:10 based on birthdate (+/- 180 days), region of residence and health status. Intervention/Instrument: Primary exposure = validated diagnosis of schizophrenia. Outcome Measures: Mammogram completion. Results: 69.3% of cases (those with schizophrenia, N = 8,055) and 77.1% of controls (N = 89,405) had a mammogram during the study period. Over 50% of cases and controls had a mammogram before age 50. Cases had lower odds of having a mammogram (OR 0.820; 95% CI 0.773 – 0.871). Cases who received care from a fee-for-service primary care provider (OR 0.566, 95% CI: 0.533- 0.600) or enhanced fee-for-service model (OR 0.566, 95% CI: 0.533- 0.600) had lower odds of having a mammogram than those in a team-based primary care (Family Health Team) model. Conclusions: Differences in rates of mammogram completion among women with schizophrenia, compared to those without, may partially be explained by differences in physician payment models. Widening the availability of team-based primary care for women with schizophrenia may be useful in increasing breast cancer detection and treatment in this demographic. Further exploration is required about why most women in Ontario have breast cancer screening before the recommended age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→