MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411098605 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.9268

Poster Session 10: Health Equity, Basic Science, New Technology

2025· article· en· W4411098605 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Editor CUAJ

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNortheastern Section of the American Urological AssociationLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Equity (law)Health scienceHealth equityComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineMedical educationWorld Wide WebEconomic growthHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In Ontario, Canada (population 14.7 million), robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) are predominantly performed in larger academic centers and urban hospitals, potentially leading to disparities in access across the province.Given the concentration of RARP resources in these centers, patients from rural or marginalized communities may face increased travel burdens and reduced availability of RARP, impacting equitable access to prostate cancer surgery, despite a universal publicly insured health system.This study assessed the impact of socioeconomic marginalization on access to RARP vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for localized prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2024.Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all Ontario patients who underwent Quality Based Procedures-funded radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer during the study period.Patient socioeconomic status was assessed using the 2021 Ontario Marginalization Index, which includes income, education, housing, and family structure.This database is based on Canadian census dissemination areas -small geographic units averaging 400-700 people.Other equity-related outcomes included neighborhood income quintiles, rurality, and distance from home to hospital.Results: We identified 6645 RARP cases and 8428 ORP cases, with RARP representing 35.1% of cases in 2017, increasing to 56.2% by 2023.The median distance traveled to hospital was 23.1 km for RARP cases (IQR 8-58) and 11.9 km for ORP (IQR 5-30).RARP cases waited longer, on average, for surgery (mean 73 days, SD 51) compared to ORP (mean 42 days, SD 32), with only 57% of RARP cases within their wait time target as compared to 81% of ORP patients.Both RARP and ORP were similarly distributed among patients residing in urban (87%) and rural (13%) areas.A gradient was observed by material resource marginalization quintiles (Q); patients in higher-marginalization neighborhoods had reduced RARP access (27% in Q1 vs. 14% in Q5), whereas ORP showed less disparity (24% in Q1 vs. 15% in Q5).Similarly, RARP access was higher in affluent areas (30% in highest-income quintile vs. 14% in lowest), while ORP varied less by income (24% highest vs. 15% lowest).Conclusions: This study found fewer RARP procedures among patients residing in highly marginalized and low-income neighborhoods, suggesting a disparity in access to RARP, despite improving access to RARP across the province.Further research is needed to explore the intersectional factors that may contribute to this gradient and its impact on clinical outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4480.118

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207