MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W164559051 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.29.4.01

Explaining Alberta’s rising mesothelioma rates

2009· article· en· W164559051 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marilyn Cree, M Lalji, Bei Jiang, KC Carriere, Jeremy Beach, Anmmd Kamruzzaman

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic diseases in Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer FoundationAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesotheliomaAsbestosMedicineCohortIncidence (geometry)Cancer registryDemographyPopulationCohort studyEnvironmental healthGerontologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although mesothelioma rates have been rising worldwide, little is known about mesothelioma trends in Alberta. This population-based descriptive study used Alberta Cancer Board Registry data from 1980 to 2004 to develop an age-period-cohort model of male pleural mesothelioma incidence rates over time. Both age and cohort effects are associated with incidence rates. The highest-risk cohort comprised men born between 1930 and 1939, reflecting widespread asbestos use and exposure beginning in the 1940s in Canada. We predict that 1393 Albertan men 40 years and older will die of pleural mesothelioma between 1980 and 2024; 783 (56.2%) of these deaths will occur between 2010 and 2024. The total number of mesothelioma deaths in Alberta will be higher when all age groups, both sexes, and all disease sites are included, with numbers likely peaking sometime between 2015 and 2019. In addition to the ongoing efforts that focus on eliminating asbestos-related disease in Alberta, the challenge is to implement surveillance systems to prevent future epidemics of preventable occupational cancers in Alberta.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronic diseases in CanadaSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207