Statistical modeling and projections of lung cancer mortality in 4 industrialized countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to model lung cancer mortality as a function of past exposure to tobacco and to forecast age-sex-specific lung cancer mortality rates. A 3-factor age-period-cohort (APC) model, in which the period variable is replaced by the product of average tar content and adult tobacco consumption per capita, was estimated for the US, UK, Canada and Australia by the maximum likelihood method. Age- and sex-specific tobacco consumption was estimated from historical data on smoking prevalence and total tobacco consumption. Lung cancer mortality was derived from vital registration records. Future tobacco consumption, tar content and the cohort parameter were projected by autoregressive moving average (ARIMA) estimation. The optimal exposure variable was found to be the product of average tar content and adult cigarette consumption per capita, lagged for 25-30 years for both males and females in all 4 countries. The coefficient of the product of average tar content and tobacco consumption per capita differs by age and sex. In all models, there was a statistically significant difference in the coefficient of the period variable by sex. In all countries, male age-standardized lung cancer mortality rates peaked in the 1980s and declined thereafter. Female mortality rates are projected to peak in the first decade of this century. The multiplicative models of age, tobacco exposure and cohort fit the observed data between 1950 and 1999 reasonably well, and time-series models yield plausible past trends of relevant variables. Despite a significant reduction in tobacco consumption and average tar content of cigarettes sold over the past few decades, the effect on lung cancer mortality is affected by the time lag between exposure and established disease. As a result, the burden of lung cancer among females is only just reaching, or soon will reach, its peak but has been declining for 1 to 2 decades in men. Future sex differences in lung cancer mortality are likely to be greater in North America than Australia and the UK due to differences in exposure patterns between the sexes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".