MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7008609338

Colorectal cancer diagnostic pathways in Ontario

2018· dissertation· en· W7008609338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical pathwayPathway analysisColorectal cancerColonoscopyAsymptomaticReferralPopulationCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to differentiate diagnostic pathways in colorectal cancer in Ontario through the development of a pathway categorization scheme, and evaluate the patient-, disease-, system-related characteristics of patients and the length of the diagnostic interval across the diagnostic pathway categories. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using an existing cohort at ICES. The study population included patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Ontario between 2009 and 2012. Cluster analysis used eleven variables that were related to patient presentation, patient visit pattern, patient symptom pattern and referral process to characterize and categorize diagnostic pathways. Chi-square test and One-way ANOVA were used to assess the association between the examined factors (age, sex, material deprivation quintile, comorbidities, and stage) and the diagnostic pathway categorization scheme. Unadjusted quantile regression was used to assess the association between the diagnostic interval length and the diagnostic pathway categorization scheme. Results: Six distinct diagnostic pathways were identified: asymptomatic pathway (N=4,494), colonoscopy pathway (N=10,066), the imaging and colonoscopy pathway (N=3,427), imaging alone pathway (N=2,238), the imaging and emergency presentation pathway (N=2,849) and no pre-diagnostic workup pathway (N=887). Patients who went through a pathway that was more adherent to diagnostic pathway guidelines (eg. asymptomatic pathway) were more likely to be younger, healthier and living in less deprived areas, and they tended to be diagnosed at an early stage with a short diagnostic interval. Patients who were female, older, living in more deprived areas and with more comorbid disease were more likely to go through pathways that were divergent from those guidelines. The length of the diagnostic interval was correlated to the number of colorectal cancer diagnosis-related visits occurring during the interval. All examined factors and the diagnostic interval were significantly associated with the pathway categorization (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study demonstrated substantial variations in colorectal cancer diagnostic pathways in Ontario. Interventions should be designed to provide individualized and more effective diagnostic services to patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→