MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact of multidisciplinary care for locally advanced rectal cancer referrals: A systems perspective.

2024· article· en· W4391091163 on OpenAlexaffabout
Victor Lo, Ranjeeta Mallick, Rachel Goodwin, Joanna Gotfrit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation oncologistMultidisciplinary approachRadiation oncologyColorectal cancerCancerRadiation therapyInternal medicineMedical recordOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

85 Background: Locally advanced rectal cancer patients require multidisciplinary care for treatment planning. We sought to determine whether the order of surgical and radiation oncology consultation in relation to medical oncology consultation affects the time from cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation and the requirement for additional pre-treatment visits with medical oncology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients referred to The Ottawa Hospital with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, seen in consultation by a surgical, radiation, and medical oncologist between January 2018 and December 2022. Results: Of 195 patients, the median time from diagnosis to treatment was 55 days (IQR: 45-68). Both surgical and radiation oncology consultation preceded medical oncology consultation in a minority of patients (72; 37%), and 48 (25%) patients required multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) discussion. However, the time from cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation was not significantly different between patients who were and were not seen by the surgeon and radiation oncologist prior to the medical oncologist (56 vs. 55 days respectively), nor if MCC discussions were or were not required (55 vs. 55 days). However, almost half of all patients (93; 48%) required an additional pre-treatment visit with their medical oncologist, and patients who saw both surgical and radiation oncology prior were significantly less likely to require additional pre-treatment visits with medical oncology (25% vs. 61%; p<0.0001). Conclusions: The time from cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation was not significantly impacted by the order of specialist consultations with the multidisciplinary team, nor if patients required MCC discussion or additional pre-treatment visits with medical oncology. However additional pre-treatment visits with medical oncology were significantly more likely to occur when patients were seen by medical oncology prior to surgical and/or radiation oncology, representing a logistical and financial inefficiency in the system, and a potential area for process improvement. [Table: see text]

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→