探索全球前沿学术脉络

Cancer care disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A sequential mixed-methods study

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted healthcare delivery worldwide, with cancer care among the most affected services. Prior studies documented delays in referrals, reduced specialist access, and increased provider burden. However, the extent to which these experiences were reflected at the system level remains unclear. Objective To document cancer care experiences and examine whether these experiences were reflected in population-level health system indicators across Ontario, Canada. Methods We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 32 participants, including patients with cancer (n=8), caregivers (n=5), healthcare providers (n=14), and decision-makers (n=5) across two hospital settings in Ontario, Canada. Emergent themes informed the development of quantitative indicators. We then conducted a retrospective population-based analysis of linked administrative health databases for cancer patients in Ontario (n=87,786) to assess the prevalence of identified themes. Results Four themes emerged: (I) delays in diagnosis and screening; (II) disrupted access to primary care; (III) barriers to specialist and mental health services; and (IV) fragmented care for patients with multimorbidity. Quantitative findings corroborated major themes. Screening rates declined for cervical (64.8% to 57.5%) and breast cancer (64.5% to 57.2%). While in-person primary care shifted almost entirely to virtual modalities (8.5% to 95.4%), overall visit volumes remained stable. Specialist care showed uneven patterns, with increased oncology visits but declines in cardiology and mental health services. Patients with multiple comorbidities experienced the largest reductions in non-oncology specialist care. Conclusion The pandemic disrupted key components of cancer care, particularly screening, access to certain specialist services, and care for patients with complex needs. Integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence highlights areas of system vulnerability and underscores the need for coordinated, resilient cancer care capable of maintaining essential services during future crises.

Hallucination in Medical Imaging AI: A Cross-Modality Analytical Framework for Taxonomy, Detection, and Mitigation under Regulatory Constraints

arXiv:2606.13211v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems are being deployed across medical imaging faster than their failure modes are understood. At this point in time, the failure of greatest clinical concern is hallucination: clinically plausible but factually incorrect outputs, including fabricated anatomical structures, missed findings, incorrect laterality, and invented measurements in generated reports, with direct consequences, for example, for biopsy decisions, staging, and treatment planning. This structured narrative synthesizes peer-reviewed studies, benchmark datasets, and FDA regulatory guidance across five imaging modalities to produce a cross-modality analysis of hallucination taxonomy, etiology, detection, and mitigation. Specifically, we address three questions in this study: (1) how can existing taxonomies be unified across modalities?, (2) how do medical-specialized foundation models hallucinate less than general-purpose ones?, and (3) which mitigation strategies are effective and compatible with FDA lifecycle oversight? We note that three taxonomic frameworks together cover the imaging pipeline in a way no single framework does alone. We also highlight that general-purpose foundation models outperform medical-specialized models on hallucination-specific benchmarks, indicating that narrow domain fine-tuning can introduce overfitting-induced confabulation. At the same time, the oversight of radiologists remains essential; for instance, a very high percentage of of AI-generated flags required expert correction before clinical use. Physics-informed architectural constraints, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and human-in-the-loop safeguards each address different failure modes and is effective when combined. All findings are mapped to the FDA's Total Product Lifecycle and Predetermined Change Control Plan frameworks, which treat hallucination management as a lifecycle obligation rather than a pre-deployment checklist.