MétaCan
← all works

Understanding the hospital safety net

2025· article· en· 0 citations· W4408576404 on OpenAlex· 10.5489/cuaj.9038

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian venueIt was published in a Canadian venue.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Health services study of prostate cancer treatment at safety net hospitals.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The study examines hospital treatment disparities for prostate cancer, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Health-services study of prostate-cancer treatment at safety-net hospitals, clinical care not research.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Safety net hospitals (SNHs) care for a substantial population of vulnerable patients and are often resource-limited. These limitations may impact treatment decisions for high-risk prostate cancer (hPCa). We performed the first population-based analysis examining SNH status and treatment decisions for localized hPCa. METHODS: percentile of Medicaid and uninsured caseload. Non-curative-intent treatment was defined as androgen deprivation monotherapy (ADT) or no treatment. Outcomes assessed were treatment choice and overall survival (OS) by SNH status. RESULTS: A total of 95 747 patients with hPCa were included; 112 hospitals were identified as SNHs, with mean Medicaid/uninsured caseload of 24.4% compared to 3.2% at non-SNHs (p<0.01). Patients at SNHs were independently associated with greater odds of non-curative-intent treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, p<0.01). Results were consistent across subgroups: private insurance (OR 2.2, p<0.01), age <65 (OR 2.3, p<0.01), and at academic centers (OR 1.9, p<0.01). There was no difference in OS among SNHs and non-SNHs when patients received curative treatment. Among patients who did not receive curative treatment, OS was greater at SNHs (hazard ratio 0.82, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at SNHs were more likely to receive non-curative treatment independent of known socioeconomic risk factors. Private insurance or treatment at academic centers did not mitigate these disparities. Increased resources may be needed at SNHs, especially in the context of healthcare expansion, which may further strain these facilities.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
Canadian Urological Association Journal
Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
Funders
Keywords
Safety netNet (polyhedron)BusinessMedicineMathematicsEnvironmental health
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes