MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413358557 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24240

Optimizing Equitable Cancer Diagnoses in Canada

2025· article· en· W4413358557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah Stephenson, Kathleen Barnard, Christina Sit, Paula Holmes-Rodman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisCancerMedicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short introduction/background summary that is understandable to the readers who do might not be familiar with the context: Why did you do it? Please explain the problem and the context. While earlier cancer diagnoses mean better outcomes, cancer diagnosis is full of delays, often driven by service and information fragmentation. All. Can Canada learns about the current state, outcomes patients want to achieve for a better future, and policies plus practices that help move from today delays to tomorrow early diagnoses. Who is it for? Please explain what community or people you are targetingPrimary care providers (including family physicians, nurse practitioners, and allied health team members such as nursing, pharmacy, social work, psychology) especially those who are part of primary care/primary health care teams Labs/pathology/radiology/oncology specialists/navigators/psychosocial support professionals, especially members of dedicated cancer investigation teams. People working on cancer diagnosis solutions like pathways, integrated practice units, AI risk assessment tools, within research, government, and innovation industries Health data experts that focus on real-time, shareable health information to improve patient experience and outcomes. Diverse people with lived experience of a cancer diagnosis (patients and caregivers) Who are you involving and engaging with? Please explain who is involved in the design, implementation and monitoring of the initiative. We are especially interested in Personal and Public Involvement and co-design approaches. Be specific. This information is essential. Led by patient groups and people with lived experiences of cancer, All.Can Canada (ACC) is a national, multi-stakeholder network for cancer care efficiency, with a preliminary aim of optimizing people entry into cancer care through swift, accurate, and appropriately delivered diagnosis. The sectors that are voting members of the ACC network include patients and caregivers with lived experience of cancer, patient groups, family physicians, pharmacists, oncologists, researchers, and policymakers. Anyone from the cancer diagnosis ecosystem in Canada, especially people with lived expertise, are welcome as network members. Thus far, we have engaged more broadly with nurse navigators, psychosocial oncology practitioners, some jurisdictional decision-makers, and health data stakeholders involved in improving the Canadian health data ecosystem through interoperable health data. We particularly seek to deepen our engagement with primary care associations, especially those representing family physicians and nurse practitioners working in primary care. What are you doing or propose to do? Please explain the initiative or intervention. If this is not yet clear and you want to make this point of discussion, make this point. ACC has created a national network for earlier cancer diagnoses. Inspired by Collective Impact and the Constellation Governance Model, it welcomes anyone from the cancer diagnosis ecosystem, especially people with lived expertise of cancer, to work together. Our common agenda is defined by mixed methods research we undertook and continue to refine, with many key findings resulting from cancer patient and caregiver interviews. We learn about earlier cancer diagnoses, especially from the perspective of diverse people with lived expertise. This year, we have deepened our understanding of issues and opportunities related to structurally underserved communities. From that evolving knowledge base, we build relationships with relevant stakeholders and share what we are learning with them to support their success and ability to improve earlier cancer diagnoses for everyone in Canada. Is the question you want to ask international colleagues or problem you want their help to solve? In the context of Canada fragmented healthcare systems, how can integrated and equitable cancer diagnoses become the systemic norm across the country for all parts of the population, including structurally underserved communities, rather than exceptional pockets of excellence?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207