MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041019404 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s1-p30

Environmental, genetic and viral risk factors of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in North Africa

2011· article· en· W2041019404 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Laantri, Marilys Corbex, Rkia Dardari, Abdellatif Benider, B. El Gueddari, Meriem Khyatti

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasopharyngeal carcinomaIncidence (geometry)ConsanguinityMedicineDemographyEthnic groupPopulationDistribution (mathematics)ThroatPathologyPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthSurgeryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NPC (Nasopharyngeal carcinoma) is a tumour that arises in the epithelium surface of the posterior nasopharynx and shows a peculiar geographic and ethnic distribution. Intermediate incidence (8-12 cases/100,000/year) was reported in the North African population (7-10% of all cancers among men), where NPC is also the commonest tumour of the ear, nose and throat region. In Asia, the majority of the cases occur in the fifth and sixth decades of life. In contrast, in North Africa the age distribution is bimodal with a minor peak in people aged between 10 and 25 years old. This juvenile form accounts for approximately 20% of the patients and has specific clinical and biological features. Geographical correlation was also observed between percentages of young cases and consanguinity rates over endemic and non-endemic populations, which may therefore explain the shape of the age curve in North Africa. Regardless of its incidence and geographic distribution, NPC results from the contribution of environmental, genetic and viral factors. These factors might however combine differently for Asian and North African patients and also among North African patients of the two age groups.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207