MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417188324 · doi:10.1002/cncr.70204

Disparities in clinical trial participation among older adult Medicare beneficiaries with hematologic malignancies from 2006 to 2019: A SEER–Medicare analysis

2025· article· en· W4417188324 on OpenAlexafffund
Inna Y. Gong, Mark J. Soto, Bahar Rafinejad‐Farahani, Joseph M. Unger, Rena M. Conti, Carmen Guerra, Amit M. Oza, Meredith B. Rosenthal, Danielle Rodin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoLeukemia and Lymphoma Society
KeywordsClinical trialMEDLINECancerYoung adultPatient participation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (CTs) are essential for expanding treatment options across hematologic malignancies (HM) and providing access to novel treatments. However, older adults with HM are often underrepresented in CTs, and a national-level evaluation of factors influencing their participation is lacking. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, identifying patients ≥66 years old diagnosed with HM between 2006 and 2018 (follow-up to December 2019). CT participation was defined by Medicare claims for CT services. Cumulative incidence and Fine-Gray models were used to estimate participation rates and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) assessed the association between participation and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: The cohort (n = 53,919) was 50% female, median age 78 years old, and 86% White. Cumulative incidence of CT participation was low at 2.7% at 1 year after diagnosis, increasing to 4.3% at 5 years. After adjustment for the competing risk of death, significantly lower CT participation was observed for older age (vs. 66-69 years: aHR for 70-74 years, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.88]; aHR for 75-79 years, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.56-0.70]; aHR for 80-84 years, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.36-0.46]; aHR for ≥85 years, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.18-0.24]), female sex (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.73-0.86]), Black race (aHR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), certain comorbidities (aHR for pulmonary disease, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.68-0.85]; aHR for renal disease, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.59-0.76]), dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility (aHR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.77]), and distance to National Cancer Institute centers from the patient's ZIP code (aHR for ≥250 miles, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need for targeted interventions, such as CT navigator programs and decentralized trials, to increase older adult participation in HM CTs.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207