Gender- and ethnicity-specific survival trends of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A shift in etiology of oral cancers has been associated with a rise in incidence for oropharyngeal cancers (OPC) and decrease for oral cavity cancers (OCC); however, there is limited information about population-based survival trends. We report epidemiological transitions in survival for both OPC and OCC from a population-based cancer registry, focusing upon gender and ethnic differences. METHODS: All primary oral cancers diagnosed between 1980 and 2005 were identified from the British Columbia Cancer Registry and regrouped into OPC and OCC by topographical subsites, time periods (1980-1993 and 1994-2005), stage at diagnosis, and ethnicity. Cases were then followed up to December 2009. Using gender-based analysis, actuarial life tables were used to calculate survival rates, which were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: For OPC, survival improved, significant for tonsil and base of tongue in men and marginally significant at base of tongue in women. This improvement occurred in spite of an increase in late-stage diagnosis for OPC in both genders. Interestingly, there was no difference in survival for early- and late-stage disease for OPC in men. For OCC, there was a decrease in survival for floor of mouth cancers in both genders although significant in women only. South Asians had the poorest survival for OCC in both genders. CONCLUSION: Survival for OPC improved, more dramatically in men than women, in spite of late-stage diagnosis and increasing nodal involvement. Given the poor survival rates and need for early detection, targeted OCC screening programs are required for South Asians.
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) | 0.001 | 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".