ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Gravity Modeling to Predict Patient Choice of Hospital for Pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies simulating how regionalization of complex surgeries such as pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) would affect access to care assumed that patients travel to their closest hospital. The validity of this assumption had not been evaluated. Our objectives were to assess the accuracy of a distance-only model in predicting where a patient received PD and determine whether incorporating hospital characteristics improved accuracy.
methodsData on patients undergoing PD from 2016 to 2017 in New York or Florida were obtained from the Statewide Inpatient Databases. We assessed three models: distance alone (model 1), distance and hospital volume (model 2), and distance, hospital volume, rurality, cancer accreditation, medical school affiliation, and centralization taxonomy of the health system (model 3). Model accuracy was determined by comparing the predicted hospital and the actual hospital where the patient received care.
resultsAmong the 2949 included patients, model 1 was accurate for only 16.3%; model 2 was accurate for 32.9%, and model 3 was accurate for 24.3%. Patients who were accurately classified with models 2 or 3 but not 1 were more likely to live in major metropolitan areas (74.7% vs. 61.0%, p < 0.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic white (71.3% vs. 68.3%, p = 0.04), more likely to have private insurance (35.0% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001), and had lower in-hospital mortality (1.3% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.03).
conclusionsDistance-only models were largely inaccurate for predicting where patients received PD. Simulations of patient redistribution should incorporate volume, distance, and additional patient- and provider-level factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.