Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Management of Oncology Patients in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adult oncology patients at an oncology clinic in Atlantic Canada. Patients completed a survey about their cancer diagnosis, treatment, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their health between September 2021 and April 2022. Seroprotection from the COVID-19 vaccine was assessed in a subset of patients. Of the 178 patients who provided consent, 161 completed the survey and 134 provided blood samples for seropositive analysis. Most reported no perceived delays in their cancer diagnosis (93.2%), treatment (91.8%), or follow-up care (98.1%) because of the pandemic. Although 75.2% of patients reported anxiety about contracting COVID-19, majority (96.3%) did not miss their appointments because of the pandemic. Seroprotection rates after COVID-19 vaccination did not differ significantly by treatment type; however, patients with hematological cancers had a significantly lower response. This study offers a snapshot of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the diagnosis, treatment, and well-being of patients with cancer. The findings may help to guide clinical decisions and mitigate care delays in the future.
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".