Hodgkin's lymphoma mortality in the Americas, 1997–2008: Achievements and persistent inadequacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although therapeutic advancements have made Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) a largely curable disease, trends in HL mortality have been variable across countries. To provide updated information on HL mortality in the Americas, overall and 20-44 years age-standardized (world population) mortality rates from HL were derived for the 12 Latin American countries providing valid data to the World Health Organization database and with more than two million of inhabitants. For comparative purpose, data for the United States and Canada were also presented. Trends in mortality over the 1997 to 2008 period are based on joinpoint regression analysis. Declines in HL mortality were registered in all Latin American countries except in Venezuela. In most recent years, HL mortality had fallen to about 0.3/100,000 men and 0.2/100,000 women in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala, that is, to values similar to North America. Despite some declines, rates remained high in Cuba (1/100,000 men and 0.7/100,000 women), Costa Rica and Mexico as well as in Venezuela (between 0.5 and 0.6/100,000 men and between 0.3 and 0.5/100,000 women). In young adults, trends were more favorable in all Latin American countries except Cuba, whose rates remained exceedingly high (0.8/100,000 men and 0.6/100,000 women). Thus, appreciable declines in HL mortality were observed in most Latin America over the last decade, and several major countries reached values comparable to North America. Substantial excess mortality was still observed in Cuba, Costa Rica, Mexico and Venezuela, calling for urgent interventions to improve HL management in these countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".