Pan-Canadian Survey of Radiation Oncology Professional Involvement in Global Oncology Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Canadian radiation oncology professionals have a strong history of involvement in global oncology initiatives worldwide. This pan-Canadian survey-based study was conducted to determine the current level of engagement of Canadian radiation oncologists (ROs) and medical physicists (MPs) in global oncology initiatives and broaden the development of these activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. The survey was designed to characterize current levels of engagement of Canadian ROs and MPs in global oncology initiatives. The survey was open from March 2019 to April 2020. It was disseminated to all Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology and Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists members with two subsequent email reminders. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 40 (93%) of the 43 Canadian cancer treatment centers that offer radiotherapy. At least one RO responded at 34 centers (79%) and one MP from 34 centers (79%) with some overlap. A response was received from a total of 93 participants, 47 ROs and 46 MPs. Of all survey participants, 58% reported some experience with global oncology. Nineteen percent of the participants surveyed were currently directly involved in short- or long-term projects, more than half of which have opportunity for additional staff involvement. The projects spanned 26 countries in South America, Africa, and Asia. Quality improvement and capacity building accounted for 27% and 20% of initiatives, respectively. The most common area of engagement was in direct treatment care, accounting for 56% of the projects. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the landscape of involvement of Canadian ROs and MPs in global oncology initiatives. The study also highlights areas of opportunity for broadening international participation and collaboration as it relates to global oncology for Canadian radiation oncology professionals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".