MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1739420899 · doi:10.1177/030089160909500505

Organization of population-based cancer control programs: Europe and the World

2009· article· en· W1739420899 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Otter, You‐Lin Qiao, Robert C. Burton, Massoud Samiei, Max Parkin, Edward Trapido, David Weller, Ian Magrath

Bibliographic record

VenueTumori Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
FundersPublic Health Agency of CanadaWorld Health OrganizationAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsPopulationCancerPsychological interventionControl (management)RehabilitationBusinessMedicinePalliative careCancer preventionHealth careNursingEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPhysical therapyEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As cancer is to a large extent avoidable and treatable, a cancer control program should be able to reduce mortality and morbidity and improve the quality of life of cancer patients and their families. However, the extent to which the goals of a cancer control program can be achieved will depend on the resource constraints a country faces. Such population-based cancer control plans should prioritize effective interventions and programs that are beneficial to the largest part of the population, and should include activities devoted to prevention, screening and early detection, treatment, palliation and end-of-life care, and rehabilitation. In order to develop a successful cancer control program, leadership and the relevant stakeholders, including patient organizations, need to be identified early on in the process so that all partners can take ownership and responsibility for the program. Various tools have been developed to aid them in the planning and implementation process. However, countries developing a national cancer control program would benefit from a discussion of different models for planning and delivery of population-based cancer control in settings with differing levels of resource commitment, in order to determine how best to proceed given their current level of commitment, political engagement and resources. As the priority assigned to different components of cancer control will differ depending on available resources and the burden and pattern of cancer, it is important to consider the relative roles of prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care in a cancer control program, as well as how to align available resources to meet prioritized needs. Experiences from countries with differing levels of resources are presented and serve to illustrate the difficulties in developing and implementing cancer control programs, as well as the innovative strategies that are being used to maximize available resources and enhance the quality of care provided to cancer patients around the world.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTumori JournalSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207