26. Retrospective analysis of HIV-infected men with anal cancer attending the Toronto General Hospital Immunodeficiency Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1985–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The incidence of anal cancer (AC) in Canada is 1.5/100 000 but HIV-infected individuals have incidence rates from 49–144/100 000. It is important to examine risk factors for this difference. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to look at risk factors in patients with the diagnosis of ‘anal cancer’ attending the Toronto General Hospital Immunodeficiency Clinic (TGH-IC) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from 1985 to 2013. There were 5200 clinic attendees. Results: 36 (0.96%) males attending TGH-IC were diagnosed with AC between 1985 and 2013; 17 (47%) were diagnosed since 2008. 7 (19.4%) are deceased; 6 (16.7%) as a result of AC. Mean age at diagnosis was 56 ± 9.8 years compared with mean age at TGH-IC of 48 ± 15.9 years (P = 0.015). 33 (91.7%) were on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) at time of diagnosis. Compared with current ART use, 30 (90.9%) vs 727 (72.6%; P = 0.015) were on nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs); 22 (66.7%) vs 554 (55.3%; P = 0.015) were on protease inhibitors; 8 (24.2%) vs 471 (47.0%; P = 0.015) were on NNRTIs. Median CD4 count at diagnosis was 265 cells mm–3, compared with the TGH-IC of 425 cells mm–3 (P = 0.04). A tobacco history (former or current) was found in 24 (72.7%) with AC vs 2232 (41%) without AC (P = 0.015). 35 (97.2%) underwent treatment: combination chemotherapy and radiation therapy being the most common in 23 (63.9%). Conclusions: In 28 years, there have been a total of 36 males diagnosed with anal cancer at TGH-IC. They were older, had a lower CD4 count and were more likely to be smokers. Combination chemotherapy and radiation therapy remains the mainstay of treatment for AC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".