MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980208656 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.66

Breast cancer: trends in international incidence in men and women

2014· article· en· W1980208656 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMale Breast Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaProvincial Laboratory of Public Health
FundersUniversity of Canterbury
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Breast cancerMedicineCancerGynecologyOncologyDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The age-standardised incidence of breast cancer varies geographically, with rates in the highest-risk countries more than five times those in the lowest-risk countries. METHODS: We investigated the correlation between male (MBC) and female breast cancer (FBC) incidence stratified by female age-group (<50 years, and ≥50 years) and used Poisson regression to examine male incidence rate ratios according to female incidence rates. RESULTS: Age-adjusted breast cancer incidence rates for males and females share a similar geographic distribution (Spearman's correlation=0.51; P<0.0001). A correlation with male incidence rates was found for the entire female population and for women aged 50 years and over. Breast cancer incidence rates in males aged <50 years were not associated with FBC incidence, whereas those in males aged 50 years were. MBC incidence displays a small 'hook' similar to the Clemmesen's hook for FBC, but at a later age than the female hook. INTERPRETATION: Further investigation of possible explanations for these patterns is warranted. Although the incidence of breast cancer is much lower in men than in women, it may be possible to identify a cause common to both men and 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.310 · 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