The 3 <sup>rd</sup> International Cancer Control Congress: international collaboration in an era of cancer as a global concern
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2002, there were 10.9 million new cancer cases in the world; 6.7 million deaths were due to cancer 1 . Cancer incidence (new cases) rises each year due to population growth and aging. Overall, five year survival rates vary from less than 15% to greater than 60% across nations 2 . Although improvements in mortality from cancer are tak ing place, they do not offset the increase in incidence. Hence, each year, more people will develop cancer, more will die of cancer, and more will be survivors of cancer ‐ the burden (personnel, community and socio-economic) will continue, inexorably, to in crease. If the cancer issue is to be addressed, the interventions must be directed at the process of cancer, not solely to the disease. Thus, cancer control must address inci dence through primordial and primary prevention, detection of curable, asympto matic, early stage disease, effective treatment programs for established disease, and palliative, supportive and end-of-life care to meet the needs of those cured and those whose death requires dignity, symptom control and compassion. To be effective, can cer control plans must be directed to the entire population (the healthy, high-risk, ill, cured and dying), recognizing that disparities of access, circumstances, gender, eth nicity and social well-being exist in all populations. Population-based cancer control plans require a vision of what is to be achieved, principles that will characterize the intents and expectations, and a process for adapt ing plans to align with the contextual realities of the nation/country from cultural, political and resource perspectives. Consideration must be given to the extent that cancer control plans are specific to cancer, or whether they are integrated into strate gies that address many non-communicable diseases [NCDs], given the common risk factors across NCDs and the overlap of principles underlying disease control plans. Finally, all plans must consider the content, the implementation process, the ‘stake holders’ (government, non-government organizations [NGOs], foundations, profes sionals, patients, public and the private sector) and their roles and relationships, and the timeframe over which plans will be enacted. To control the process of NCDs, in cluding cancer, requires collaboration, relationships and ‘partnerships’ ‐ it cannot be achieved solely by discrete organizations, institutions, or disciplines. Given the diver sity and disparity across populations and the rising cancer/NCD burden that will face all, common purpose, collaboration, knowledge transfer and rational action must characterize the way forward. The purpose of the 3 rd International Cancer Control Congress (ICCC-3) was to promote and foster a global community of practice through enabling extensive participation and dialogue between countries and societies with wide and varying experiences in cancer control; building on and synergizing ongoing work by governments, NGOs, international organizations and patient and public groups to make sustainable cancer control an important global priority. The ICCC-3 was held in Cernobbio, Italy in November 2009, and was built upon the achievements of the ICCC-1 (Vancouver, 2005) and ICCC-2 (Rio de Janeiro, 2007) by ensuring an agenda that focused on: international collaboration; establishment of sustainable na tional/large population cancer control strategies; promoting broad cross-sectoral participation (e.g., governments, cancer organizations, foundations, non-govern
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,064 | 0,030 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».