Epidemiology of Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans in Alberta, Canada, from 1988 to 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have only been a few population-based, epidemiologic studies assessing dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP). OBJECTIVE: To assess the epidemiology of DFSP in Alberta, Canada, over a 20-year period. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective analysis of all cases of DFSP in Alberta was conducted using data from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Sex-, age-, and anatomical location-specific incidence rates and trends were determined. RESULTS: The overall age-standardized incidence rate of DFSP remained stable at 0.93 per 100,000. DFSP prevalence was highest in individuals aged 20 to 39 (46.8%), followed by those aged 40 to 59 (34.0%), 60 and older (14.7%), and lastly younger than 20 (4.5%). The mean age at diagnosis was 41.1 (women) and 43.1 (men). The incidence of DFSP in men and women has shown a dramatic shift such that incidence in women has increased 3.2% per year, whereas in men it has decreased 2.7% per year. In women, DFSP incidence increased on the trunk and decreased on the upper extremities. CONCLUSION: The age-standardized incidence of DFSP observed is nearly twice as high as previously reported and has remained stable. The incidence is increasing in women and decreasing in men. DFSP primarily affects young to middle-aged adults and most commonly presents on the trunk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".