MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120640863 · doi:10.1155/2010/565613

Racial Differences in the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer

2010· article· en· W120640863 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rukinder Virk, Sharlene Gill, Eric Yoshida, Baljinder Salh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)DemographyColorectal cancerMedicinePopulationCancerCancer registryEpidemiologyCancer incidenceInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer is one of the most common cancers and the second most common cause of cancer mortality in Western societies. Population screening has been introduced as a means to reducing its impact; however, there are little or no data on the incidence of this disorder in the different populations that comprise the Canadian population. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively determine the incidence of colorectal cancer in selected racial populations of British Columbia. METHODS: The British Columbia Cancer Agency database was used to retrieve information on the incidence of cancers occurring during the years 1994 to 1998, with the British Columbia and national population censuses used to derive the age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates of colorectal cancers. Surnames were used to identify the origin of individuals from South Asian and Chinese backgrounds. RESULTS: For the Caucasian Canadian (C) population, the weighted age-standardized incidence rate ranged from 51.99 per 100,000 in 1995, to 57.68 per 100,000 in 1998. For Chinese Canadians (CC), the range was 39.2 per 100,000 in 1996, to 31.2 per 100,000 in 1998. For South Asian Canadians (SAC), the range was 7.40 per 100,000 in 1994, to 24.85 per 100,000 in 1998. The RR for the development of cancer were significantly different when comparing C versus CC (RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.31; P<0.001), C versus SAC (RR 7.1; 95% CI 4.20 to 12.0; P<0.0001) and CC versus SAC (RR 3.7; 95% CI 2.14 to 6.5; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in the incidence of colorectal cancers have been defined for the first time in various racial subgroups in British Columbia. This finding may have important implications for both screening and understanding of the environmental factors influencing the biology of these lesions. Because SAC have among the highest incidence of atherosclerotic heart disease and diabetes, it suggests that unidentified genetic and/or environmental protective factors are capable of countering the traditionally recognized risk of high saturated fat intake for the development of colorectal cancer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207