International trends in prostate-cancer mortality in the ?PSA era?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incidence and mortality from prostate cancer were rising in most countries until the late 1980s. Following a number of advances in the management of prostate cancer, including introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, there have been reports of declines in mortality in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. To investigate the extent to which this pattern was seen in other industrialised countries, we used routinely collected data to explore recent changes in prostate-cancer mortality. Trends in age-standardised death rates between 1979 and 1997 for men aged 50 to 79 years in 24 industrialised countries were compared using join point regression. Join point regression allows estimation of the annual percentage change in death rates and tests for significant changes in trend. During the period studied, age-standardised mortality increased at 1% to 2% per year in most countries. In 7 countries (Canada, United States, Austria, France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom), a significant down-turn in age-standardised mortality was observed over the period 1988-1991. Trends in age-specific rates within these countries support a period effect on prostate-cancer mortality. Declines in mortality could result from any combination of either artefact, reduction in prostate-cancer incidence, a rise in competing causes of death or changes in the risk of death from prostate cancer. There are inconsistencies in the relationship between national mortality trends and uptake of PSA screening; further research is required to determine whether changes in death rates can be explained by international and secular variations in the treatment of prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".