Cluster of liver cancer and immigration: A geographic analysis of incidence data for Ontario 1998–2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver cancer is not common in Canada in general; however, clustering of the disease causes a concern. We conducted a spatial analysis to determine the geographic variation of liver cancer and its association with the proportion of immigration in Ontario. Liver cancer incidence data between 1998 and 2002 were obtained from the Ontario Cancer Registry. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) in 2001 provided information on potential risk factors. RESULTS: Age standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for liver cancer and prevalence of potential risk factors were calculated for each of 35 health regions. The SIRs for liver cancer varied across the 35 health regions (p < 0.01). Toronto and York health regions had a significantly higher SIR than other regions, indicated by the Scan method (p < 0.001). Poisson models with and without random effects were fitted to determine independent ecological contributors. After adjustment for sex, age and spatial location, the proportion of immigrants remained a significant determinant. Smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, education, income, obesity and diabetes did not substantially explain the geographic variation of liver cancer in Ontario. CONCLUSION: Immigration is an important reason for the clustering of liver cancer in Ontario. More attention should be paid to areas with a high proportion of immigrants.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".