MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rehab or radiation?: That is the question.

2025· article· en· W4414913088 on OpenAlexaff
A. Deshane, Amy Xu, Morgan E. Freret, Daniel R. Gomez, Puneeth Iyengar, C.J. Tsai, Fumiko Chino, Divya Yerramilli

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortRadiation therapyDemographicsHospital dischargeHospital admissionCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

52 Background: Hospitalized patients (pts) with an indication for radiation therapy (RT) may also require discharge to a subacute rehabilitation facility (SAR). However, certain insurance plans might not permit RT while admitted to SAR, requiring the completion of RT inpatient or the initiation of RT after SAR discharge. We hypothesized that pts who can receive RT while admitted to SAR have lower length of stay (LOS), thus preserving hospital resources and timely RT delivery. Methods: We examined a cohort of hospitalized pts at a single urban tertiary cancer center for whom radiation oncology was consulted and were then discharged to SAR between January 2019 to February 2024. We identified pts who received RT during the hospitalization or within 30 days of hospital discharge. We then examined pts who received RT prior to discharge to SAR (IN-PT RT), pts who received RT while admitted to SAR (SAR-RT), and pts who received RT after discharge from SAR but within 30 days of discharge from the hospital (PostSAR-RT). We examined mean age, race/ethnicity, baseline Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), insurance, radiation technique, and site treated as predictors of outcome. We also examined various time intervals related to hospital admission, discharge, and RT consult and start. Chi-square testing was used for non-continuous variables and with Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis testing for continuous variables. Results: Overall, of the initial cohort (n=337), 52.2% (n=176) were IN-PT RT, 6.5% (n=22) were SAR-RT, and 3.8% (n=13) PostSAR-RT. Demographics and RT course data across groups are listed in Table 1. IN-PT RT had a significantly higher proportion of privately insured pts than SAR-RT (p=0.039). In all, pts were treated to 263 sites with predominantly palliative intent. 33% were non-spine bone lesions (n=86), 27.5% were spine lesions (n=72), and 25% were brain lesions (n=66). 28.4% (n=50) of IN-PT RT received ultra-hypofractionated SBRT. IN-PT RT had higher LOS of 24 days than SAR-RT (10 days, p <0.001) and PostSAR-RT (12 days, p < 0.001) but no difference in time from admission to inpatient RT consultation (6 days; 5 days; 6 days (p=0.572)). Conclusions: Pts who receive RT inpatient prior to discharge to SAR have double the LOS than those receiving RT at SAR, despite similar times from admission to inpatient consultation. IN-PT RT (N=176) >SAR-RT (N=22) PostSAR-RT (N=13) Count (%) Median (Range) Count (%) Median (Range) Count (%) Median (Range) P Value Sex Male Female 86 (49)90 (51) 11 (50)11 (50) 7 (54)6 (46) 0.94 Age (Years) 68 (19-89) 76 (41-90) 68 (50-87) Race White Black Asian Other/Unknown 125 (71)32 (18)9 (5)10 (6) 19 (86)2 (18)0 (0)1 (5) 10 (77) 1 (8)1 (8)1 (8) 0.71 Insurance Medicare/Medicaid Private Self Pay/None Listed 99 (56)57 (32)20 (11) 16 (73)1 (5)5 (23) 9 (69)4 (31)0 (0) 0.039 KPS at Consultation 60 (50-90) 70 (40-80) 50 (50-90) 0.109 RT Intent Definitive Palliative 5 (3)171 (97) 6 (27)16 (73) 5 (15)11 (85) 0.001 Days from Consult to RT start 4 (0-46) 11 (1-21) 21 (11-26) <0.001

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.459 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207