Trends in oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)‐related and HPV‐unrelated sites in a multicultural population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing recognition of the involvement of human papilloma virus infection in the etiology of head and neck cancers at some sites, mainly the base of the tongue, tonsils, and other oropharynx (hereafter termed oropharyngeal cancer). Other oral sites (hereafter termed oral cavity cancer [OCC]) show a stronger association with tobacco and alcohol. Little is known about the ethnic variation in incidence for these cancers. This study determined incidence rates of OCC and oropharyngeal cancer among South Asian, Chinese, and the general population in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Patients with OCC and oropharyngeal cancer diagnosed from 1980 to 2006 were identified through the British Columbia cancer registry, and surname lists were used to establish ethnicity. Age-adjusted incidence rates were determined for these cancers by sex, topographical site, and ethnicity, and temporal trends were examined. RESULTS: Age-adjusted incidence rates have been decreasing for OCC and increasing for oropharyngeal cancer in the general population for both sexes, with men having higher incidence rates than women. Ethnic differences were found, with the highest age-adjusted incidence rates for OCC for men in South Asians and for women in Chinese, and with the highest age-adjusted incidence rates for oropharyngeal cancer for men in Chinese and for women in the general population. Differences were also found for OCC topographical sites by sex and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer has now surpassed OCC in the British Columbia male population. Ethnic minorities are at higher risk than the general population for both OCC and oropharyngeal cancer for men, and for OCC for women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".