MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2591617250 · doi:10.1158/1538-7755.disp16-ia04

Abstract IA04: Developing a national plan for cancer prevention and control; balancing unmet needs and addressing global disparities

2017· article· en· W2591617250 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alejandro Mohar, Nancy Reynoso, Abelardo Meneses

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLatin AmericansOverweightMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationObesityDemographyEpidemiologyTobacco controlPublic healthGerontology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Later estimates calculate that more than 12 million people are diagnosed every year with cancer. If there is no a major shift in the prevalence of risk factors, it is expected that by the year 2030 there will be 20 million people diagnosed with cancer worldwide and 13 million deaths. For the Latin American and Caribbean region, around 1.7 million new cases and 1 million deaths will occur annually. Of 590 million inhabitants in Latin America, more then 50% do not have health-care coverage. In addition, there is a high prevalence of risk factors associated with chronic diseases, which include an increase in sedentary lifestyles, overweight, obesity and diabetes mellitus, tobacco smoke, alcohol use, household air pollution, diets low in fruits and vegetables, and ageing. In contrast with the United States and Canada where tobacco smoke is the leading risk factor for cancer, in Latin America the leading risk factors are overweight and alcohol use. However, these data are indirect since there are few epidemiological studies in the region that identify the prevalence and time-trend of these and other factors. It is known that only 8-10% of the Latin American population, is covered by population-based cancer registries; by contrast with 96% in the USA and Canada. Within these limitations, it is estimated that the overall incidence of cancer is lower in Latin America (163/100,000) compared to the USA (300/100,000). However, the mortality rate is higher in Latin America, since the mortality/incidence ratio for Latin America is 0.59 compared with 0.35 in the USA or 0.43 for Western Europe. This higher mortality burden is associated with advanced stages of the disease at the time of diagnosis. In the USA, 60% of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in early stages, whereas in Brazil and Mexico only 20% and 10%, respectively, are diagnosed earlier. In Latin America breast and cervical cancer are the more common cancer types in women, in the USA are breast and colon cancer; in men, prostate, stomach and lung cancer are the more common malignancies in Latin America, whereas in the USA are prostate, lung and colorectal. Within a setting off financial restrictions, a common characteristic of the oncological institutions in Latin America is that most of them are poorly equipped, highly concentrated in urban areas, limitations in human resources, low-income of the physicians and nurses, poor access to new drugs, and in most of them a fragmented or segmented health-care system. In addition, among these 33 states there is unbalance access to medical care with diversity in socioeconomic, geographic, environmental, cultural and ethnic factors that provide fewer services to the poor, thus promoting further inequity. For example, in Mexico and Perú there are a total of 269 medical oncologists in Mexico of whom 60% work in the three megacities of the country. In Perú, 85% of the 130 medical oncologists reside in Lima, the capital city. Finally, adequate medical infrastructure to undertake prevention, diagnostic and treatment of cancer is not available or not accessible in several regions of Latin America. Mammography is 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, radiotherapy units are available in 0.128 per 100,000 inhabitants; by comparison, USA has 1.2 radiotherapy units. The health care investment in Latin America varies substantially between countries, on average the total health expenditure was 7.7% of GDP, by comparison in the USA in the same year it was 17.2% Conclusions and challenges. There is an urgent need to increase efforts towards primary and secondary prevention of cancer in Latin America; particularly, to identify patients in early stages of the disease and offer prompt treatment to them. To accomplish a better cancer control it is necessary the development, implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive National Cancer Control Plan in this region, which includes the investment in population-based cancer registries. However, this situation will not improve without adequate financial and better human resources. The economic burden of cancer in Latin America is estimated to be around US$4billion. Surprisingly, the mean medical expenditure per patient is $7.92, compared with $460 in the USA. In addition the estimated expenditure gap for cancer in this region is between 25-57%, compared with 11% in high-income countries. They are several challenges ahead for Latin America. As a first step: restructure of health-care systems together with an increase in the financial resources to improve primary and secondary prevention together with cancer care. Also, to develop and optimize the oncology infrastructure, including the work-force. It is necessary an improvement and investment in clinical and epidemiological research according to the needs and capacity of these countries. Cancer in Latin America has become a mayor public health problem, that requires an urgent planning and directed interventions. Cancer control should be a national priority for Latin America. Citation Format: ALEJANDRO MOHAR, Nancy Reynoso, Abelardo Meneses. Developing a national plan for cancer prevention and control; balancing unmet needs and addressing global disparities. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr IA04.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,049
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,118

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0050,003
Science ouverte0,0040,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0300,010

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,125
Tête enseignante GPT0,415
Écart entre enseignants0,290 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionMême sujetGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207