MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1896682376 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n3p146

Incidence Trend and Epidemiology of Common Cancers in the Center of Iran

2015· article· en· W1896682376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hosein Rafiemanesh, Narjes Rajaei-Behbahani, Yousef Khani, Sayedehafagh Hosseini, Zahra Pournamdar, Abdollah Mohammadian-Hafshejani, Shahin Soltani, Seyedeh Akram Hosseini, Salman Khazaei, Hamid Salehiniya

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyMedicineCancerCancer registryDemographyStomach cancerPublic healthDiseaseBreast cancerEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem in Iran and many other parts of the world. The cancer incidence is different in various countries and in country provinces. Geographical differences in the cancer incidence lead to be important to conduct an epidemiological study of the disease. This study aimed to investigate cancer epidemiology and trend in the province of Qom, located in center of Iran. METHOD: This is an analytical cross-sectional study carried out based on re-analysis cancer registry report and the disease management center of health ministry from 2004 to 2008 in the province of Qom. To describe incidence time trends, we carried out join point regression analysis using the software Join point Regression Program, Version 4.1.1.1. RESULTS: There were 3,029 registered cases of cancer during 5 years studied. Sex ratio was 1.32 (male to female). Considering the frequency and mean standardized incidence, the most common cancer in women were breast, skin, colorectal, stomach, and esophagus, respectively while in men the most common cancers included skin, stomach, colorectal, bladder, and prostate, respectively. There was an increasing and significant trend, according to the annual percentage change (APC) equal to 8.08% (CI: 5.1-11.1) for all site cancer in women. CONCLUSION: The incidence trend of all cancers was increasing in this area. Hence, planning for identifying risk factors and performing programs for dealing with the disease are essential.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207