MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978311359 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.2061

Increasing thyroid cancer incidence in Canada, 1970–1996: time trends and age-period-cohort effects

2001· article· en· W1978311359 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simin Liu, R Semenciw, A-M Ugnat, Y Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerIncidence (geometry)CohortCohort effectCohort studyDemographyThyroidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined time trends in thyroid cancer incidence in Canada by age, time period and birth cohort between 1970 and 1996. Age-specific incidence rates by time period and birth cohort were calculated and age-period-cohort modelling used to estimate effects underlying the observed trends. Overall age-adjusted incidence rates of thyroid cancer doubled, from 3.3 and 1.1 per 100 000 in 1970-72 to 6.8 and 2.2 per 100 000 in 1994-96, among females and males respectively. Almost all the increase between 1970-72 and 1994-96 was due to papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. Age, birth cohort and period effects significantly improved the fit of the model for females, while age and birth cohort effects were significant determinants of the incidence among males. There were significant differences in the patterns/curvature for age, period and birth cohort effects between women and men. Our results suggest that the increases in thyroid cancer incidence in Canada may be associated with more intensive diagnostic activities and change in radiation exposure in childhood and adolescence. Temporal changes in reproductive factors among young women may explain some of the gender differences observed.

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)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations251
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207