Uro-Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings at an Australian Tertiary Centre: A Detailed Analysis of Cases, Decision Outcomes, Impacts on Patient Treatment, Documentation, and Clinician Attendance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There is currently limited local and international literature on the characteristics of uro-oncology multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) and their impact on clinical decision making. The aims of this study were to provide a comprehensive descriptive analysis of MDTMs at an Australian tertiary hospital over a 12-month period and their impacts on patient management, and to evaluate adherence to MDTM plans. Methods: We conducted a review of a prospectively maintained database of all uro-oncology MDTMs held within the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network (NALHN) over a 12-month period in 2020–2021. Results: During this 12-month period, 24 MDT meetings were conducted, in which 280 patients were discussed. Overall, MDTMs resulted in modifications to the management of 25.7% of patients, which was consistent across all three major tumour streams (24% for prostate cancer, 29% for renal cell carcinoma, and 22% for urothelial carcinoma). MDTMs also facilitated cross referrals between specialties for 105 patients (37.5%), including 5 patients who were considered for entry into clinical trials. There was a high acceptance rate, with adherence to MDT recommendations for 270 of the 278 patients discussed (96.4%). MDTM plans were fully implemented within a 6-month period. Conclusions: We provided a detailed analysis of uro-oncology MDTMs at an Australian tertiary referral centre, demonstrating that MDTMs facilitate optimal cancer management for patients with urological cancers.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".