Healthcare Utilization of Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients in Emergency Department and Outpatient Settings: <scp>An</scp> 8‐year Population‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine trends in the healthcare utilization by Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal cancer patients across emergency department (ED) and outpatient settings in Alberta and examine the predictors of ED visits. METHODS: This is a retrospective, population-based, cohort study using administrative data collected by all healthcare facilities between 2010 and 2019 in Alberta, Canada. Trend of visits to different facilities, patients' primary diagnosis, and predictors of ED visits were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 34% of patients had at least one cancer-related ED visit. With a rise of 31% in cancer incidence, there was a notable upswing in visits to outpatient clinics and community offices, while ED visits decreased. Cancer stage, rural residence, high material deprivation score, and treatments were found as predictors of ED visits. CONCLUSION: Improved symptom management and better care access for disadvantaged and rural oral cancer patients may decrease avoidable ED visits.
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".