Socioeconomic Status and The Prevalence of Melanoma in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if an association exists between the prevalence of melanoma and socioeconomic status based on income gradients in a large population of over 12 million people in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study using administrative health care databases was conducted. Individuals were divided into five income quintiles based on median neighborhood household income. A Mantel-Haenszel extension test was used to assess whether there was a gradient in the prevalence of melanoma across income groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine if median neighborhood income predicted the prevalence of a melanoma, independent of gender, age, and urban-rural residence status. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 14,623 patients with melanoma. Between the lowest income group of $37,637 and the highest income group of $84,162, the prevalence of melanoma increased by 225%. Our study also identified an association between melanoma prevalence and rural residence. The overall prevalence rate was 30% (p < .01) higher in rural areas compared with urban areas. CONCLUSION: A higher socioeconomic status and rural versus urban residence status appear to be significant risk factors for the development of melanoma in Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 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".